Hi
On Thursday 13 of March 2014 20:40:49 devz...@web.de wrote:
> What do "They" recommend instead?
>
> If it`s all about copying and network bandwidth is not an issue, you can use
> scp or whatever dumb tool which just shuffle the bits around "as is".
> rsync is being used when you want to keep
> Anyway, if "They" care about their data , "They" use checksumming for storing
> their data on disk, do "They" ? ;) silent bitrot on disks _does_ happen
I totally agree. Storage devices fail and if you need to know if the data is
the same then a checksum is your best bet. If you want to do you
What do "They" recommend instead?
If it`s all about copying and network bandwidth is not an issue, you can use
scp or whatever dumb tool which just shuffle the bits around "as is". rsync is
being used when you want to keep data in sync and if you want to save bandwidth
to handle that task. You
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 11:52:51AM -0500, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> On 03/11/2014 11:02:28 AM, Sig Pam wrote:
> > Hi everbody!
> >
> > I'm currently working in a project which has to copy huge amounts of
> > data from one storage to another. For a reason I cannot validate any
> > longer, there is a ro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I have actually witnessed rsync silently corrupting data. But it
wasn't rsync's fault. I had a bad RAM DIMM that was corrupting the
part of RAM being used as the disk cache. Now I always get ECC RAM.
On 03/11/2014 12:52 PM, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> On
On 03/11/2014 11:02:28 AM, Sig Pam wrote:
> Hi everbody!
>
> I'm currently working in a project which has to copy huge amounts of
> data from one storage to another. For a reason I cannot validate any
> longer, there is a roumor that "rsync may silently corrupt data".
> Personally, I don't believe
