[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 03:11:10PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
[...]
No. Pascal has no provision for separate compilation. Pascal is
defined by Niclaus Wirth's "Report". The fact that no reasonable
^^
Do you mean "
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 09:26:55AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 12/13/06 08:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 05:53:17PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On 12/12/06 16:30, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> >>>
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 03:11:10PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> >-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >Hash: SHA1
> >
> >On 12/12/06 18:06, Mike McCarty wrote:
> >
>
> >>>programming. In fact, I *like* B&D languages. Why? Not needing to
> >>>worry about pointers and heaps a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/13/06 15:11, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 12/12/06 18:06, Mike McCarty wrote:
>>
>
programming. In fact, I *like* B&D languages. Why? Not needing to
worry abou
Ron Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/12/06 18:06, Mike McCarty wrote:
programming. In fact, I *like* B&D languages. Why? Not needing to
worry about pointers and heaps and array under/overflows trampling
over core means that my jobs die less often, which i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/13/06 08:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 05:53:17PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 12/12/06 16:30, Mike McCarty wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> My recollection of the 1980s MS-DOS world was that Turbo Pascal's
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/13/06 07:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 09:20:43PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> On 12/12/06 18:06, Mike McCarty wrote:
>>> Ron Johnson wrote:
On 12/12/06 16:30, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 05:53:17PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 12/12/06 16:30, Mike McCarty wrote:
> > Ron Johnson wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> My recollection of the 1980s MS-DOS world was that Turbo Pascal's
> >> problems were it's small memory mod
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 09:20:43PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 12/12/06 18:06, Mike McCarty wrote:
> > Ron Johnson wrote:
> >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> On 12/12/06 16:30, Mike McCarty wrote:
> >>
> >>> Ron J
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/12/06 18:06, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 12/12/06 16:30, Mike McCarty wrote:
>>
>>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>>
My recollection of the 1980s MS-DOS world was that Turb
Mike McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>However OOP does offer a genuinely useful tool.
>
> One can do OOD and OOP with any language.
Yes, Mike, we all know that, and we've all done that.
Having built-in language support for it is _useful_.
-Miles
--
People who are more than casually intere
Ron Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/12/06 17:23, Miles Bader wrote:
Probably. OOP is not a magic bullet, and bad programmers will still
produce bad programs (and classes and libraries and ...).
But it's the In Thing, and so it's got to be good! :\
Ho
Ron Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/12/06 16:30, Mike McCarty wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
My recollection of the 1980s MS-DOS world was that Turbo Pascal's
problems were it's small memory model and lack of modules until
v4.0, by which time C had already take
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/12/06 17:23, Miles Bader wrote:
> Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> After a while, the exceptions and exceptions to exceptions etc etc
>> make the sub-classing inheritance trees really ugly and impossible
>> to debug.
>>
>> Or maybe I ju
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/12/06 16:30, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>
>>
>> My recollection of the 1980s MS-DOS world was that Turbo Pascal's
>> problems were it's small memory model and lack of modules until
>> v4.0, by which time C had already taken over.
>
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> After a while, the exceptions and exceptions to exceptions etc etc
> make the sub-classing inheritance trees really ugly and impossible
> to debug.
>
> Or maybe I just work in a messy industry...
Probably. OOP is not a magic bullet, and bad programmers wi
Mike McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But when C came along, Pascal was just not up to systems programming.
> The only other alternative was assembler.
There were tons of "systems pascal" variants around, and lots of systems
programming was done in pascal (e.g., the "spice" OS, predecessor to
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 03:23:49PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >Eiffel eliminates that problem with its "expanded" classes.
> >Modula-3 avoids that problem by having data structures that are *not*
> >made of objects (in the technical OO sense) and that can be places off
> >the heap,
Ron Johnson wrote:
My recollection of the 1980s MS-DOS world was that Turbo Pascal's
problems were it's small memory model and lack of modules until
v4.0, by which time C had already taken over.
Who said anything about MSDOS? C took over when CP/M was the rage.
"Modules" are just what I menti
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/12/06 15:23, Mike McCarty wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> Eiffel eliminates that problem with its "expanded" classes.
>> Modula-3 avoids that problem by having data structures that are *not*
>> made of objects (in the technical OO sense) and that can be pl
[snip]
Eiffel eliminates that problem with its "expanded" classes.
Modula-3 avoids that problem by having data structures that are *not*
made of objects (in the technical OO sense) and that can be places off
the heap, and in other objects.
Modula-3 even goes the whole way to low-level system
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/11/06 18:41, Miles Bader wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[snip]
> (3) making it simpler to code generic algorithms by taking advantage of
> these hierarchical type relationships.
After a while, the exceptions and exceptions to excepti
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 09:52:50AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> Whoops, chopped off my last paragraph; I meant:
>
> It has many other advantages however, including those from OOP, and more
> unusually, a notational power that makes certain sorts of programs
> _much_ easier to write/read. [Part of
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 09:41:44AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >> I've yet to see the appeal of OO. Then again I've never seen Algol. I
> >
> > Much of the advantage of OO can be obtained by:
> >* strong type checkin * garbage collection * ancillary run-time checks
On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 03:19:07AM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >I've noticed the same kind of disputes in natural languages. For
> >example, English speakers usually perceive a clear semantic difference
> >between "many" and "much". Yet it's possible t
Whoops, chopped off my last paragraph; I meant:
It has many other advantages however, including those from OOP, and more
unusually, a notational power that makes certain sorts of programs
_much_ easier to write/read. [Part of this is the fact that doing so
can be done _efficiently_ -- it's very c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> I've yet to see the appeal of OO. Then again I've never seen Algol. I
>
> Much of the advantage of OO can be obtained by:
>* strong type checkin * garbage collection * ancillary run-time checks
Those have nothing to do with OOP (that is to say, they are orthogona
On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 03:19:07AM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >I've noticed the same kind of disputes in natural languages. For
> >example, English speakers usually perceive a clear semantic difference
> >between "many" and "much". Yet it's possible t
Håkon Alstadheim wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
Peas also fall into this category. I don't know whether I could
find examples which are not related to food, but believe me, the
issue is if you ask "how many" then you want an actual count,
and anything not counted is not a "many", but rather a "muc
Mike McCarty wrote:
Peas also fall into this category. I don't know whether I could
find examples which are not related to food, but believe me, the
issue is if you ask "how many" then you want an actual count,
and anything not counted is not a "many", but rather a "much".
How much timber, ho
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
I've noticed the same kind of disputes in natural languages. For
example, English speakers usually perceive a clear semantic difference
between "many" and "much". Yet it's possible to give a purely syntactic
rule to distinguish them -- you use "many" when mod
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/08/06 20:27, Douglas Tutty wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 11:26:19AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 05:23:16PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
>>> On 12/07/06 11:26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
> I wish there was an in
On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 11:26:19AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 05:23:16PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On 12/07/06 11:26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > Did you ever write any code in the 1970's that can'
Ron Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/08/06 12:22, Mike McCarty wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 05:23:16PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 12/07/06 11:26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
I looked at it again a few years ago -- some
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/08/06 12:22, Mike McCarty wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 05:23:16PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
>>> On 12/07/06 11:26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
>> I looked at it again a few years ago -- some bit rot has occurre
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 05:23:16PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/07/06 11:26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did you ever write any code in the 1970's that can't be run any more?
I did.
Shame on you for not writing in a po
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 08:41:54PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 12/07/06 19:25, Douglas Tutty wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 06:18:43PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> >> On 12/07/06 17:39, Mike McCarty wrote:
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 05:23:16PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 12/07/06 11:26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Did you ever write any code in the 1970's that can't be run any more?
> > I did.
>
> Shame on you for not writing in a portable lan
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 04:39:53PM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote:
>
> I wonder what NASA did for their deep-space probes like Voyager? The
> recent stuff seems to be disposable (e.g. how long will this one last?),
> but Voyager was meant to keep on running. They used some sort of gold
> pressed rec
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/07/06 20:42, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> [snip]
[snip]
> I don't like arguments. That isn't what I've been led to believe.
> Raid 1 doesn't do that, AFAIK. I won't respond further, as this
> is getting way away from the OPs qu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/07/06 19:21, Douglas Tutty wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 05:39:50PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
> Don't you wish you could run linux on the IBM 1401?
No. They were a PITA.
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA
Ron Johnson wrote:
[snip]
What your code looks like is RAID-3.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID#RAID_3
A RAID 3 uses byte-level striping with a dedicated
parity disk. RAID 3 is very rare in practice. One
of the side-effects of RAID 3 is that it generally
cannot service multi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/07/06 19:25, Douglas Tutty wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 06:18:43PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> On 12/07/06 17:39, Mike McCarty wrote:
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
> You mean there's no emulator that lets me run Fortran for the 704? I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/07/06 18:52, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
[snip]
>>> One way of doing RAID 5 with three discs is to write data to
>>> each of two discs, and write the bitwise XOR of the data on
>>> the two discs to a third. This requires no spe
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 05:39:50PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >I quite agree. But in the absence of error-correction codes,
> >uncompressed is batter.
> >
> >And if your error-correction software ahould happen to be unusable in
> >several years, your errors will
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 04:09:23PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Everything involves Pascal's triangle somewhere :-)
>
> >thanks for the refresher!
>
> Sorry, my grad schooling is in Mathematical Probability and Statistics.
> I almost got a Ph.D (a kid suddenly came along, and I had to get a
> r
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 04:36:02PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 12/07/06 16:27, Mike McCarty wrote:
> > Ron Johnson wrote:
> >>
> >> RAID is *not* for archives!!!
> >
> > RAID was not designed for archives. I can see no reason why
> > it would
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 06:18:43PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 12/07/06 17:39, Mike McCarty wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [snip]
> > I wrote some machine language programs for the IBM 1401 in 1969.
> > Does that count as programs that
Ron Johnson wrote:
I'd only trust "RAID archiving" if the controller and a rescue CD
were also stored in the "archive location" along with the hard drives.
I gave two examples of RAID archiving which required no
special controller, and which would need to special rescue CD
to use. You snipped
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 05:39:50PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >I quite agree. But in the absence of error-correction codes,
> >uncompressed is batter.
> >
> >And if your error-correction software ahould happen to be unusable in
> >several years, your errors will
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/07/06 17:39, Mike McCarty wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
> I wrote some machine language programs for the IBM 1401 in 1969.
> Does that count as programs that can't be run any more?
$ wajig show simh
[snip]
Description: Emulators for 3
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/07/06 17:36, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>>
RAID is *not* for archives!!!
>>>
>>> RAID was not designed for archives. I can see no reason why
>>> it wouldn't work for that. RAID 1, for example, is simply
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I quite agree. But in the absence of error-correction codes,
uncompressed is batter.
And if your error-correction software ahould happen to be unusable in several
years, your errors will not be easy to corrected.
Even with FEC uncompressed may be better. OTOH, few
Ron Johnson wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
RAID is *not* for archives!!!
RAID was not designed for archives. I can see no reason why
it wouldn't work for that. RAID 1, for example, is simply
making two (or more) copies of the data. Are you saying that
making more than one copy of a backup is not a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/07/06 11:26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 09:16:11AM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 09:02:37PM -0600, Reid Priedhorsky wrote:
>>
[snip]
> I quite agree. But in the absence of error-correction codes
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 12:26:13PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 09:16:11AM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 09:02:37PM -0600, Reid Priedhorsky wrote:
> >
> > > No, you _should_ compress it and then use some of the space you saved to
> > > add so
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/07/06 16:27, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>
>> RAID is *not* for archives!!!
>
> RAID was not designed for archives. I can see no reason why
> it wouldn't work for that. RAID 1, for example, is simply
> making two (or more) copies o
Ron Johnson wrote:
RAID is *not* for archives!!!
RAID was not designed for archives. I can see no reason why
it wouldn't work for that. RAID 1, for example, is simply
making two (or more) copies of the data. Are you saying that
making more than one copy of a backup is not a reasonable
approach
Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 08:41:23AM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:11:06PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
[Mike wrote]
So, the probability that at least one disc fails is 1-(1-p)(1
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 09:16:11AM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 09:02:37PM -0600, Reid Priedhorsky wrote:
>
> > No, you _should_ compress it and then use some of the space you saved to
> > add some carefully chosen redundancy which will allow you to reconstruct
> > everyt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/07/06 09:07, Douglas Tutty wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 08:36:39AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> On 12/07/06 08:16, Douglas Tutty wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 09:02:37PM -0600, Reid Priedhorsky wrote:
>> [snip]
[snip]
> Personal data. D
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 08:41:23AM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> >On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:11:06PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
> >
> >>Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
>
> [Mike wrote]
>
> >>Let p be the probability of failure of each disc, independently of the
> >>othe
Douglas Tutty wrote:
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 09:02:37PM -0600, Reid Priedhorsky wrote:
No, you _should_ compress it and then use some of the space you saved to
add some carefully chosen redundancy which will allow you to reconstruct
everything, not just some things, in case of failure. (E.g.,
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 08:36:39AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 12/07/06 08:16, Douglas Tutty wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 09:02:37PM -0600, Reid Priedhorsky wrote:
> [snip]
> > Apparently, hard disks use FEC themselves so that they eithe
Douglas Tutty wrote:
Mike,
Without expending any mathematical energy, could you recompute your two
probabilities based on a set of three disks instead of 2? I'm guessing
that the probability of one disk failing goes up but the probability of
all three failing drops substantially (the famious t
Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:11:06PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
[Mike wrote]
Let p be the probability of failure of each disc, independently of the
other. There are four mutually independent events which comprise the
space. Both discs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/07/06 08:16, Douglas Tutty wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 09:02:37PM -0600, Reid Priedhorsky wrote:
[snip]
> Apparently, hard disks use FEC themselves so that they either can fix
> the data or there is too much damage and the drive is inaccessi
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 09:02:37PM -0600, Reid Priedhorsky wrote:
> No, you _should_ compress it and then use some of the space you saved to
> add some carefully chosen redundancy which will allow you to reconstruct
> everything, not just some things, in case of failure. (E.g., using par2.)
> S
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 15:40:33 +0100, hendrik wrote:
>
> If you want to be able to recover data despite damage, it is in general
> not wise to compress it, since different parts will be damaged
> independently, and the undamaged parts will still be readable.
> Squeezing out redundancy makes diff
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:11:06PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> >On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 02:52:29PM +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> >
> >>Question: how likely is it that both disks develop bad blocks, while
> >>none of them is damaged? I'm no expert on this, but I
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:11:06PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> >On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 02:52:29PM +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> >
> >>Question: how likely is it that both disks develop bad blocks, while
> >>none of them is damaged? I'm no expert on this, but I
Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 02:52:29PM +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
Question: how likely is it that both disks develop bad blocks, while
none of them is damaged? I'm no expert on this, but I guess a better
strategy might be to rotate backups on two disks, and use (
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 06:58:35PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Speaking pedantically, if the probability of error is greater than 50%,
you can complement every bit and gte a probability less than 50%.
No, not so. Because on the channels we are discussing, the bits
have
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 10:08:50AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If the drive electronics fails, for example, or a piece of abrasive
> dirt is on the head during a seekm you lose all three partitions.
>
> Better to have one partition on each of three separate drives.
>
> My strategy?
>
>
Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> if the chance of a disk failure is (say) 1% in the time alloted, then
> the chance of having a failure with disks is 2%. THe change of any one
> particular disk failing is still 1%, it the odds of A failure in the
> system as a whole that goes up. So with more disks y
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 02:52:29PM +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
>
> Question: how likely is it that both disks develop bad blocks, while
> none of them is damaged? I'm no expert on this, but I guess a better
> strategy might be to rotate backups on two disks, and use (and check:
> fsck and sm
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 11:01:49PM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote:
> Thanks Mike,
>
> If I can attempt to summarize a portion of what you said:
>
> If the issue is resistance to data block errors, it doesn't
> matter if I use a file system or not so I may as well use a file
> system
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 07:55:40PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
>
> >I'm focusing on the one-drive issue because this is one drive sitting in
> >a bank vault. This is __archive__ (just like tape). I have backup
> >procedures as a separate issue. One of the places that backup data goes
> >to is th
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 06:58:35PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> >On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 07:08:54PM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote:
> >
> >>Yes. But I don't want to loose any data at all.
> >
> >
> >there is no way to guarantee this. you could improve your odds by
> >havi
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 09:31:18AM -0800, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
>
> I use backup2l to make incremental backups to a partition in /dump.
> These backups are then GPG-encrypted, with the key of the owner of each
> server.
Thereby ensuring that the entire backup depends on the survivability o
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 05:01:36PM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 10:53:13AM +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> > Douglas Tutty wrote:
> > > I'm going to be backing up to a portable ruggedized hard drive.
> > > Currently, my backups end up in tar.bz2 format.
> > >
> > > It
Douglas Tutty wrote:
> The idea is that a format with built-in error-correcting would scatter
> the redundancy around the disk so that if a few blocks are bad, the data
> can still be retreived.
Point taken.
> Even raid1 doesn't accomplish this. With raid1 and two disks, if both
> disks have b
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 06:58:35PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> >On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 07:08:54PM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote:
> >
> >>Yes. But I don't want to loose any data at all.
> >
> >
> >there is no way to guarantee this. you could improve your odds by
> >havi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/05/06 21:43, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Douglas Tutty wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 07:55:40PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
>>> Douglas Tutty wrote:
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 06:57:38PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> [snip]
[snip]
> If in X years yo
Douglas Tutty wrote:
If FEC is used on all media (except CDROM), is there any value in adding
my own FEC layer over top or should I just format the drive JFS and copy
my tar.bz2 backup file to it and be done? (remembering that the drive in
the bank is only one of the sets of data I keep).
Onl
Douglas Tutty wrote:
Thanks Mike,
If I can attempt to summarize a portion of what you said:
If the issue is resistance to data block errors, it doesn't
matter if I use a file system or not so I may as well use a file
system then if have difficulty, rip multiple copies of
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 09:43:55PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Yes, FEC is used on all modern technology data storage that I know of,
> with the possible exception of CDROMs. I haven't studied the low level
> data storage format they use to know whether they use any FEC when
> storing data as op
Thanks Mike,
If I can attempt to summarize a portion of what you said:
If the issue is resistance to data block errors, it doesn't
matter if I use a file system or not so I may as well use a file
system then if have difficulty, rip multiple copies of the file
syste
Douglas Tutty wrote:
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 07:55:40PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Douglas Tutty wrote:
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 06:57:38PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
[snip]
I'm not complaining Mike. Also, note who's saying what; there's a few
voices in this conversation.
Sorry, did
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/05/06 21:20, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 12/05/06 19:33, Douglas Tutty wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 06:57:38PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
>>> >
[snip]
>>> The question is, if a block is sucessfully written now, if the drive is
>>> not used for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/05/06 19:33, Douglas Tutty wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 06:57:38PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> >
>>> You could implement your own FEC. A very simple form of FEC is simply
>> Yes, but *why*? Tape storage systems have been using ECC for deca
Douglas Tutty wrote:
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 06:27:10PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Douglas Tutty wrote:
[snip]
One thing to bear in mind is that, no matter how good an FEC method
you use, you are going to have to store about 2x redundant data
to get anything out of it. IOW, the data + par
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 07:55:40PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Douglas Tutty wrote:
> >On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 06:57:38PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > >
> >
> >The question is, if a block is sucessfully written now, if the drive is
> >not used for 5 years then a read is attempted, is the drive
Douglas Tutty wrote:
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 06:57:38PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
You could implement your own FEC. A very simple form of FEC is simply
Yes, but *why*? Tape storage systems have been using ECC for decades.
There's a whole lot of "Linux people" who's knowledge of computer
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 06:27:10PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Douglas Tutty wrote:
> >I've looked at par2. It looks interesting. For me, the question is how
> >to implement it for archiving onto a drive since the ECC data are
> >separate files rather than being included within one data stream
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 06:57:38PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> > You could implement your own FEC. A very simple form of FEC is simply
>
> Yes, but *why*? Tape storage systems have been using ECC for decades.
>
> There's a whole lot of "Linux people" who's knowledge of computer
> history see
Ron Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/05/06 18:27, Mike McCarty wrote:
You could implement your own FEC. A very simple form of FEC is simply
Yes, but *why*? Tape storage systems have been using ECC for decades.
You are the only one who can answer this q
Tyler MacDonald wrote:
[snip]
When the /dump partition starts to get a bit full somewhere, I
create a DVD image of some of the tarballs and burn off 4 copies. Two stay
at home, one goes to my friend that is managing the repo, and one gets
mailed to a friend in austria.
You are effecti
Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 07:08:54PM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote:
Yes. But I don't want to loose any data at all.
there is no way to guarantee this. you could improve your odds by
having multiple storage locations with multiple copies and a rigorous
method for routi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/05/06 18:27, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Douglas Tutty wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 05:47:23PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
>>> Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
Douglas Tutty wrote:
> I'm going to be backing up to a portable ruggedized hard drive
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
