Generated.

[homepage.git] / blog / Some_notes_on_fault_tolerant_storage_systems.html

diff --git a/blog/Some_notes_on_fault_tolerant_storage_systems.html b/blog/Some_notes_on_fault_tolerant_storage_systems.html
index 53d4d01d3bea6c73765189542009ee0ea9109092..636dfbd4a3e24942856181ca8ff5013588418721 100644 (file)
--- a/blog/Some_notes_on_fault_tolerant_storage_systems.html
+++ b/blog/Some_notes_on_fault_tolerant_storage_systems.html
@@ -84,7 +84,10 @@ redundant storage systems.  Details matter.  And unfortunately there
 are few options on Linux addressing all the identified issues.  Both
 ZFS and Btrfs are doing a fairly good job, but have legal and
 practical issues on their own.  I wonder how cluster file systems like
-Ceph do in this regard.</p>
+Ceph do in this regard.  After, all the old saying, you know you have
+a distributed system when the crash of a compyter you have never heard
+of stops you from getting any work done.  The same holds true if fault
+tolerance do not work.</p>
 
 <p>Just remember, in the end, it do not matter how redundant, or how
 fault tolerant your storage is, if you do not continuously monitor its