From ca191711c76ab8400eee8fe475a1494ec3e966a5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Petter Reinholdtsen Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 15:34:36 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Add quote. --- blog/data/2017-11-01-storage-fault-tolerance.txt | 5 ++++- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) 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 -- 2.47.2