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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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