I occasionally work with Russians here in Alaska.
To their credit, they are very hard workers.

First thing I ask of them is "say moose and squirrel"

Seems the trolls are the only ones that get mod points these days.

Our solar system still has billions of objects hurling about the sun. Nothing is static. Everything is dynamic. It's only a matter of time before the earth gets hit again by a space rock the size of a mountain, more or less, .. doesn't really matter.

As many comments previous & following involve the "buried head in the sand" approach, which is just fine, there's no need to "worry" about an asteroid impact. It'll happen when anyone least expects it.

The skies are very big and our eyes on the sky are very limited.

Yes it is, and that's a very short sighted approach. I hope you're not a developer.

I was really just throwing out drives and times. I had name-brand systems that were in a RAID 0 to consolidate two drives (the drive contents were expendable since this was just scratch space) and they ran for many years with few failures.

I meant, what if there was a bug in the RAID 5 code that caused similar corruption? This is equivalent (almost) to blaming the victim. Yes, you did risky behavior, but the problem wasn't caused because of the risky behavior.

You can't remove drives from a ZFS pool - once they're in (even if you have free space on other drives), the number of drives can't go down. Which really bothers me. With LVM you can evacuate data off of drives and shrink the pv. LVM in itself isn't a filesystem, but if you think of a pool as an LVM volume the functionality is somewhat similar.

RAID 0 is only as unstable as its least stable component. In this case it's most likely a drive failure, and most drives are fairly long MTBFs. The chances of a disk failure increase as a function of time and number of drives deployed. A two-drive RAID 0 will be more stable than a five-drive RAID 0 which will be more stable than a 10 drive RAID 0 that's three years old. In the case of higher RAID levels, you can remove a single (or multiple) drive failure as the point of failure. In this case, the point of failure is the kernel, so it's perfectly legitimate to consider this a really bad problem. Would you say the same thing if the bug affected RAID 1 or RAID 5?

I have 4 drives in a RAID 10, so two RAID 1 arrays of two drives each combined together in a RAID 0. I did it mostly because I can add new drive at any time and just chain them onto the RAID 0.

Trying to prove a negative? And you're wondering why I'm rolling my eyes at you?

From the article I linked to. Did you bother reading it?

Yes. That's exactly what they did. *eyeroll*

Yeah, no. This is about the vote to give a Russian country control of 20% of US uranium production and Sec. Clinton's (non)involvement in it. If you want to spittle on about other things, find someone else who is interested.

Yeah, I kinda gathered that.

You haven't laid out anything other than a bunch of baseless accusations. You should write a book about it, I'm sure it'll sell.

Any evidence of that? Otherwise, you're just making up stuff. Please stick to the facts.

I'm gonna have to go with a [citation needed] for most of that.

Starting with this one:

No, they're trying to delay until January 2016, a full 10 months BEFORE the election, even before the primaries. If there's anything damaging in there, it'll be far worse for her and Democrats if there's something serious enough for her to quit the race since she's effectively the only person running. Getting the e-mails out now turns it into a non-story by then since they'll have already been released.