4 ms·
Suppose your FS has a 50% chance of partially recoverable failure in a given time range. Is that always better than the catastrophic alternative, even if the od
by hamandcheese 4y ago
Suppose your FS has a 50% chance of partially recoverable failure in a given time range. Is that always better than the catastrophic alternative, even if the odds of catastrophic failure are 0.01%?
- Avamander 4y agoThat risk assessment depends on your use-case. Those percentages also aren't very correct. Assuming that new files are being constantly created and they're not of vital long-term integrity, the chance of preventing silent bit rot (ZFS is supposed to protect against) is worth fuck all if it's much more likely that a bug takes your pool irrecoverably with hours of data.