Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Warning: RAID 0 (Score 1) 226

by Enry (#49745763) Attached to: Linux 4.0 Has a File-System Corruption Problem, RAID Users Warned

I suspect not, since his point seemed to be that you shouldn't be using RAID 0 for data that you care about anyway.

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.

Comment: Re:Why ext4 (Score 1) 226

by Enry (#49743503) Attached to: Linux 4.0 Has a File-System Corruption Problem, RAID Users Warned

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.

Comment: Re:Warning: RAID 0 (Score 2, Insightful) 226

by Enry (#49743223) Attached to: Linux 4.0 Has a File-System Corruption Problem, RAID Users Warned

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?

Comment: Re:Government is guilty until proven innocent (Score 1) 102

by Enry (#49740085) Attached to: Do Russian Uranium Deals Threaten World Supply Security?

And you know this from?..

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

And, maybe, they did... But seeing Clinton being in favor decided not to rock the boat and alienate the probably next President...

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

A rather backwards way of conceding a point, but I'll take it. It must've been hard for you as it is.

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.

Comment: Re:The issue is less that and more about corruptio (Score 3, Insightful) 102

by Enry (#49739107) Attached to: Do Russian Uranium Deals Threaten World Supply Security?

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

Starting with this one:

The State Department is trying to delay the release of her emails until AFTER the election.

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.

Comment: Re:Government is guilty until proven innocent (Score 3, Interesting) 102

by Enry (#49739039) Attached to: Do Russian Uranium Deals Threaten World Supply Security?

Nonsense. She was the most influential person on that panel and among the 10 most influential members of the government. Her approval or lack thereof was, in all likelihood, the deciding factor.

You realize that she wasn't the person that voted and the person who did represent the State Department had no contact with her about it, yes? And the other departments that are represented in the vote include DHS, Defense, and Energy? If any one of them had qualms about it, I'm certain they would have brought it up (especially DHS and Defense) and recommended a veto.

The rest of what you put down is an incoherent rant that really doesn't have much to do with the issue at hand.

The trouble with doing something right the first time is that nobody appreciates how difficult it was.

Working...