Most video formats are designed to handle errors--they'll drop a frame or two, but they'll resync quickly. So, depending on the size of the error, there may be a visible glitch, but it'll keep working.
Interestingly enough, this applies to a lot of MPEG-derived formats as well, like MP3. I had a couple bad copies of MP3s that I tried to listen to on my computer a few weeks ago (podcasts copied via bluetooth off of my phone, apparently with no error checking), and it made the story hard to follow when a few seconds would disappear out of the middle, but it didn't destroy the file. Scott On 11/9/07, David Dyer-Bennet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > can you guess? wrote: > > > CERN was using relatively cheap disks and found that they were more than > > adequate (at least for any normal consumer use) without that additional > > level of protection: the incidence of errors, even including the firmware > > errors which presumably would not have occurred in a normal consumer > > installation lacking hardware RAID, was on the order of 1 per TB - and > > given that it's really, really difficult for a consumer to come anywhere > > near that much data without most of it being video files (which just laugh > > and keep playing when they discover small errors) that's pretty much > > tantamount to saying that consumers would encounter no *noticeable* errors > > at all. > > > > I haven't played with bit errors in video. A bit error in a JPEG > generally corrupts everything after that point. And it's pretty easy > for people to have a TB or so of image files of various sorts. > Furthermore, I'm interested in archiving those for at least the rest of > my life. > > Because I'm in touch with a number of professional photographers, who > have far more pictures than I do, I think of 1TB as a level a lot of > people are using in a non-IT context, with no professional sysadmin > involved in maintaining or designing their storage schemes. > > I think all of these are good reasons why people *do* care about errors > at the levels you mention. > > One of my photographer friends found a bad cable in one of his computers > that was upping his error rate by an order of magnitude (to 10^-13 I > think). Having ZFS would have made this less dangerous, and detected it > more quickly. > > Generally, I think you underestimate the amount of data some people > have, and how much they care about it. I can't imagine this will > decrease significantly over the next decade, either. > > -- > David Dyer-Bennet, [EMAIL PROTECTED]; http://dd-b.net/ > Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/ > Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ > Dragaera: http://dragaera.info > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
