Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Do people really take this risk seriously? (Score 2) 233

by tuxgeek (#49755019) Attached to: Asteroid Risk Greatly Overestimated By Almost Everyone
As typical of most /. articles and comments being mind-numbingly asinine, your post gets close to the mark.
It's not a matter of IF, it's a matter of WHEN.

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.

Comment: Re:Warning: RAID 0 (Score 1) 225

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) 225

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) 225

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) 99

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.

An engineer is someone who does list processing in FORTRAN.

Working...