| 1 |
Am Dienstag, 8. Januar 2013, 08:27:51 schrieb Florian Philipp: |
| 2 |
> Am 08.01.2013 00:20, schrieb Alan McKinnon: |
| 3 |
> > On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 21:11:35 +0100 |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Florian Philipp <lists@×××××××××××.net> wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> Hi list! |
| 7 |
> >> |
| 8 |
> >> I have a use case where I am seriously concerned about bit rot [1] |
| 9 |
> >> and I thought it might be a good idea to start looking for it in my |
| 10 |
> >> own private stuff, too. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> [...] |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> >> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_rot |
| 15 |
> >> |
| 16 |
> >> Regards, |
| 17 |
> >> Florian Philipp |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > You are using a very peculiar definition of bitrot. |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > "bits" do not "rot", they are not apples in a barrel. Bitrot usually |
| 22 |
> > refers to code that goes unmaintained and no longer works in the system |
| 23 |
> > it was installed. What definition are you using? |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> That's why I referred to wikipedia, not the jargon file ;-) |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> The definition that I thought about was decay of storage media, |
| 28 |
> especially hard disks. I'm not aware of another commonly used name for |
| 29 |
> that effect. Disk rot seems to apply only to optical media. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> > If you mean crummy code that goes unmaintained, then keep systems up to |
| 32 |
> > date and report bugs. |
| 33 |
> > |
| 34 |
> > If you mean disk file corruption, then doing it file by file is a |
| 35 |
> > colossal waste of time IMNSHO. You likely have >1,000,000 files. Are |
| 36 |
> > you really going to md5sum each one daily? Really? |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> Well, not daily but often enough that I likely still have a valid copy |
| 39 |
> as a backup. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
and who guarantees that the backup is the correct file? |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
btw, the solution is zfs and weekly scrub runs. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
-- |
| 46 |
#163933 |
Archives