From: Petter Reinholdtsen <pere@hungry.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:31:35 +0000 (+0100)
Subject: Wrap up post.
X-Git-Url: https://pere.pagekite.me/gitweb/homepage.git/commitdiff_plain/0e01e53026e5778894455d3b537730565a612288?ds=sidebyside;hp=a7ec90711e555e7df6cb6b899d00a873a72c6ff4

Wrap up post.
---

diff --git a/blog/data/2017-11-01-storage-fault-tolerance.txt b/blog/data/2017-11-01-storage-fault-tolerance.txt
index 065c2f380b..2b138231b0 100644
--- a/blog/data/2017-11-01-storage-fault-tolerance.txt
+++ b/blog/data/2017-11-01-storage-fault-tolerance.txt
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 Title: Some notes on fault tolerant storage systems
 Tags: english, sysadmin, raid
-Date: 2017-11-01 15:30
+Date: 2017-11-01 15:35
 
 <p>If you care about how fault tolerant your storage is, you might
 find these articles and papers interesting.  They have formed how I
@@ -15,7 +15,6 @@ Reactions to Single Errors and Corruptions</a> by Aishwarya Ganesan,
 Ramnatthan Alagappan, Andrea C. Arpaci-Dusseau, and Remzi
 H. Arpaci-Dusseau</li>
 
-
 <li>ZDNet
 <a href="http://www.zdnet.com/article/why-raid-5-stops-working-in-2009/">Why
 RAID 5 stops working in 2009</a> by Robin Harris</li>
@@ -66,3 +65,7 @@ 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 next generation cluster
 file systems like Ceph do in this regard.</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
+status to detect and replace failed disks.</p>