Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by skorgu 3947 days ago
There are lots of areas in which the data is reproducible but local continuity (and checksumming!) are still extremely valuable. Think things like large iso files, dvd rips or even intermediate stages of data analysis. Since I can reproduce them having a backup might not make sense but I still don't really /want/ to have to go to all that effort.

Especially things like scratch space for analysis you really don't want bit flips since you've maybe silently invalidated later stages.
1 comments
oconnore 3947 days ago
Did you read the article? Did you read my post? Who are you replying to?

Checksumming is great. Improving uptime (in your case, by not having to recreate the data) is great. Why do you assume I don't agree with you?

link
skorgu 3946 days ago
"They seem to care about their data somewhat, which of course means they have off-site backups."

I don't think a reply of "there are classes of data that one can care about and still not have backups of" is unreasonable.

"...I can surmise is that they're confused"

Again, I think showing a few cases in which users can have perfectly non-confused reasons for using these filesystems is pretty straightforward as conversational gambits go.

link
oconnore 3946 days ago
The article wasn't about using RAID, it was complaining of a lack of RAID60 and triple parity in btrfs, and a lack of volume expansion features in zfs.
link
skorgu 3946 days ago
Well, yes but I don't think either of those things are really addressed by "care about data IFF backups exist". I guess I either don't get what point you're making or we're just getting distracted by phrasing.
link