Typo.

diff --git a/blog/data/2017-11-01-storage-fault-tolerance.txt b/blog/data/2017-11-01-storage-fault-tolerance.txt
index a73385ef2eb0cf3b0a2359396312cfb88fc15bc7..df451fc356d52634dd797fd518e67f0c75460b6f 100644 (file)
--- a/blog/data/2017-11-01-storage-fault-tolerance.txt
+++ b/blog/data/2017-11-01-storage-fault-tolerance.txt
@@ -64,10 +64,10 @@ 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.  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>
+Ceph do in this regard.  After all, there is an 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