From: Petter Reinholdtsen Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:34:36 +0000 (+0100) Subject: Add quote. X-Git-Url: https://pere.pagekite.me/gitweb/homepage.git/commitdiff_plain/ca191711c76ab8400eee8fe475a1494ec3e966a5?ds=inline Add quote. --- diff --git a/blog/data/2017-11-01-storage-fault-tolerance.txt b/blog/data/2017-11-01-storage-fault-tolerance.txt index 4cd7187f50..c470083018 100644 --- a/blog/data/2017-11-01-storage-fault-tolerance.txt +++ b/blog/data/2017-11-01-storage-fault-tolerance.txt @@ -64,7 +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.

+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.

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