Gentoo IRC channels reside on Libera.Chat. I'm looking forward to read about your experiences with different kinds of storage setups. zfs seems very complex, but it seems to be pretty much at the top when it comes to data integrity. btrfs is very close, but as I said, it's not complete. The reason I wrote this post is that there seems to be no robust solution to this. And eventually, preferably, hotswap the broken disk to a new one and sync. Keeping backups for important data is important, but it saves a lot of hazzle if your main data storage can fix corruptions while serving the file, or give you the uncorrupted data from some other disk. Incremental backups usually saves from those kind of disasters. So what kind of setups you guys use with your important data storage? Obviously backups, but corrupted data can lurk into backups too. Again the scrubbing is a separate process, not "online". Is this enough? I haven't dug deep enough.Īlso Linux mdraid under it doesn't do automatic error detection and serve you the uncorrupted data. I think lvm even supports shrinking of lv that has ext4 on it.īut as far as I know ext4 and xfs, both "only" checksum the metadata. So far ext4 and xfs have been my choice of filesystems. So I've finally settled to lvm handling my raid and logical volumes. zfs has licensing problem, and using it is more complex than btrfs. It's good, but not completely ready (and you can't put swapfile on a multidisk btrfs). These filesystems have better checksumming. As far as I know, those 520 sector drives are a rare find now days and the price is astronomical compared to regular hard drives.Įnter the new generation of filesystems: zfs, btrfs, bcachefs. ![]() A smart enough storage solution (filesystem, raid implementation or what have you) would then use the 8 extra bytes for parity/checksum data and really present the the disk to the rest of the OS as if it had 512 byte sectors. If I'm not mistaken it was more common back in the days for (enterprise) hard drives to have 520 byte sectors instead of 512. ![]() Too many storage setups rely on hard drive telling it has some corrupted bits. You'd need to manually issue scrub or whatever to find, and possibly correct, the bit rot. Most of the hard drives and RAID implementations don't care if some bit of your data is corrupted. ![]() Posted: Fri 9:43 am Post subject: You can't trust hard drives. SeaMonkey and Palemoon are probably the best for close to handling the modern web.Gentoo Forums :: View topic - You can't trust hard drives. They all work in 32-bit and have varying degrees of usefulness. I have also used links2, Midori (both in Q4OS repo), Netsurf, and otter-browser (both not in Q4OS repos). You will need to work at changing the configuration to make it work best in 32-bit, especially with low memory. But it also is an old version.įirefox-ESR will probably work but it is pretty memory hungry. Palemoon-nonsse is supported here with a special install routine. ![]() The last SeaMonkey I can use on non-SSE2 machines is version 2.49.4. But depending on your 32-bit system you may not be able to use anything that requires SSE2. SeaMonkey can be downloaded and placed in any folder of your choice, it does not require an "installation". SlimJet can be downloaded and installed from a deb file. Only FF-ESR and Palemoon-nonsse are in the Q4OS repos. For 32-bit I have had success with using Firefox-ESR, Palemoon-nonsse, SlimJet, and SeaMonkey.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |