From: Petter Reinholdtsen Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:40:29 +0000 (+0100) Subject: Typo. X-Git-Url: https://pere.pagekite.me/gitweb/homepage.git/commitdiff_plain/5adef9d9ba3bbc86123637452872073b83f60e30?ds=sidebyside Typo. --- diff --git a/blog/data/2017-11-01-storage-fault-tolerance.txt b/blog/data/2017-11-01-storage-fault-tolerance.txt index a73385ef2e..df451fc356 100644 --- 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.

+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.

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