1 |
Am Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 06:01:11PM -0500 schrieb Dale: |
2 |
|
3 |
> > The advantage of an integrity scheme (like ZFS or comparing with a checksum |
4 |
> > file) over your rsync approach is that you only need to read all the datas™ |
5 |
> > from one drive instead of two. Plus: if rsync actually detects a change, it |
6 |
> > doesn’t know which of the two drives introduced the error. You need to find |
7 |
> > out yourself after the fact (which probably won’t be hard, but still, it’s |
8 |
> > one more manual step). |
9 |
> |
10 |
> In this case, if something had changed, I'd have no problem manually |
11 |
> checking the file to be sure which was good and which was bad. |
12 |
|
13 |
Consider a big video file, which I know you like to accumulate from youtube |
14 |
and the likes. How do you find out the broken one? By watching it and trying |
15 |
to find the one image or audio frame that is garbled? The drive might return |
16 |
zeros or other garbage (bit flip) instead of actual content without SMART |
17 |
noticing it (uncorrectable error). |
18 |
|
19 |
> Given |
20 |
> the error is recent on my drive, I'd suspect the backups to still be a |
21 |
> good file. For that reason, I'd suspect the backup file to be good |
22 |
> therefore not to be overwritten. I was trying to avoid a bad file |
23 |
> replacing a good file on the backup which then destroys all good files |
24 |
> and leaves only bad ones. This is why I like that SMART at least let me |
25 |
> know there is a problem. |
26 |
|
27 |
I also tend to rely on smart, but it’s not all-knowing and probably not |
28 |
infallible. |
29 |
|
30 |
> Sometimes things has to be done manually which is often the best way. |
31 |
> Just depends on the situation I guess. |
32 |
|
33 |
-- |
34 |
Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’ |
35 |
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network. |
36 |
|
37 |
The only thing still keeping me here is Earth’s gravity. |