Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 07:08:36 +0000 From: Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@sohara.org> To: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: expand UFS partition Message-ID: <20231117070836.cb5b6763bba63fe9997b3688@sohara.org> In-Reply-To: <B424F8D6-2E11-4E34-8869-915FF0AD5088@nxg.name> References: <6f8c7df4-2665-4794-9fd2-81e47128232d@paz.bz> <CO1PR11MB4770BFAD0D1C29563C6840DEE6B0A@CO1PR11MB4770.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <B424F8D6-2E11-4E34-8869-915FF0AD5088@nxg.name>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 21:05:31 +0000 Norman Gray <gray@nxg.name> wrote: > > On 16 Nov 2023, at 19:44, Edward Sanford Sutton, III wrote: > > > It is always easier to schedule downtime than it is to schedule data > > loss. > > I think I'm going to print this out and put it on the wall above my desk. > > (or put another way: 'Dear Boss: downtime or data-loss, pick one') At a PPOE where we made scale out filesystems based on FreeBSD one of the things we used to do was calculate and advertise "mean time to data loss" for various configurations of redundancy up to and including eight way mirrors (yes that one has a very long MTTDL - we used it for filesystem metadata). -- Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@sohara.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20231117070836.cb5b6763bba63fe9997b3688>