On 9-Nov-07, at 3:23 PM, Scott Laird wrote: > 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.
Well that's nice. How about your database, your source code, your ZIP file, your encrypted file, ... --T > > > 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 _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
