On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 08:44:16 +0900
Joel Rees wrote:
> this is not a situation where we are worried about
> attackers
Crypto is crypto... and md5, sha1, sha256 are cryptographic hashes. And a
cryptographic hash is only as good as its slowness in reverse computation and
its uniqueness [collisio
On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 08:18:21 +0900
Joel Rees wrote:
> Did you mean 3xiTB, by any chance?
There will be blood... err.. typos.
--Andrew
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
htt
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 5:20 AM, AW wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 16:08:41 -0400
> Gary Dale wrote:
>
> > Whatever for? There are better checksums and md5 doesn't provide error
> > correction? Even the MD5 man page advises using sha checksums instead.
>
> md5sum provides a relatively quick check
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 4:56 AM, AW wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 15:24:49 -0400
> Gary Dale wrote:
>
> > Assuming you have both a backup copy and a live copy plus some par2
> > files, you should be safe with the 5% to 10% I suggested.
>
> If going with an external
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 08:40:40AM -0400, AW wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 17:30:14 +1200
> Chris Bannister wrote:
>
> > That's dammned expensive and not useful at all!!!
>
> It's very useful. Consider the yearly savings in electricity. And if you
You snipped it!! Read what you wrote, again.
On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 17:30:14 +1200
Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 03:56:14PM -0400, AW wrote:
> > On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 15:24:49 -0400
> > Gary Dale wrote:
> >
> > > Assuming you have both a backup copy and a live copy plus some par2
> >
On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 17:30:14 +1200
Chris Bannister wrote:
> Here in New Zealand - *ONE* Raspberry Pi $55.00, 16GB SD $20.00, cases
Well, you do have some of the most picturesque land recorded in 48 frames
per second... and Hobbits... :)
> That's dammned expensive and not useful at all!!!
It
On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 03:56:14PM -0400, AW wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 15:24:49 -0400
> Gary Dale wrote:
>
> > Assuming you have both a backup copy and a live copy plus some par2
> > files, you should be safe with the 5% to 10% I suggested.
>
> If going with
On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 10:50:42 -0400
Gary Dale wrote:
> Your results...
The test was only a very simple comparison. If you want a more thorough test,
it's certainly much better to break everything out the way you have listed...
and it's probably best done on the chosen and completed hardware con
On 09/08/14 06:02 PM, AW wrote:
On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 16:37:52 -0400
Gary Dale wrote:
> The speed of the check is usually limited by the speed of reading the
> file(s) from disk. A par2 check is more direct and will also
> automatically repair any bit rot that has developed.
D
On 09/08/14 08:32 PM, David Christensen wrote:
On 08/09/2014 12:24 PM, Gary Dale wrote:
However I can see you wanting them to be
out of the way. par2 actually puts them in the current directory unless
you tell it differently so you could for example do:
cd /mnt/datadrive/.par2/stuff
par2
On 08/09/2014 12:24 PM, Gary Dale wrote:
However I can see you wanting them to be
out of the way. par2 actually puts them in the current directory unless
you tell it differently so you could for example do:
cd /mnt/datadrive/.par2/stuff
par2 c files.par2 ../../stuff/*
or just:
par2 c
On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 16:37:52 -0400
Gary Dale wrote:
> The speed of the check is usually limited by the speed of reading the
> file(s) from disk. A par2 check is more direct and will also
> automatically repair any bit rot that has developed.
Definitely not.
For very small files n
if it fails, then use the "real"
check, i.e. pars. This saves [or seems to save] computing resources...
However, it was just a suggestion...
--Andrew
The speed of the check is usually limited by the speed of reading the
file(s) from disk. A par2 check is more direct and will also
automat
On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 16:08:41 -0400
Gary Dale wrote:
> Whatever for? There are better checksums and md5 doesn't provide error
> correction? Even the MD5 man page advises using sha checksums instead.
md5sum provides a relatively quick check... if it fails, then use the "real"
check, i.e. pars.
On 09/08/14 03:56 PM, AW wrote:
On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 15:24:49 -0400
Gary Dale wrote:
> Assuming you have both a backup copy and a live copy plus some par2
> files, you should be safe with the 5% to 10% I suggested.
If going with an external backup and pars... I'd also add md5
On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 15:24:49 -0400
Gary Dale wrote:
> Assuming you have both a backup copy and a live copy plus some par2
> files, you should be safe with the 5% to 10% I suggested.
If going with an external backup and pars... I'd also add md5sums to the list.
I've had gre
On 09/08/14 11:35 AM, David Christensen wrote:
On 08/09/2014 08:11 AM, Gary Dale wrote:
To preserve your archive, I'd advise PAR2 redundancy files to fix any
problems that may crop up. So long as your HD copies are good, you don't
need to go to the PAR2 files, but should one develop
On 08/09/2014 08:11 AM, Gary Dale wrote:
To preserve your archive, I'd advise PAR2 redundancy files to fix any
problems that may crop up. So long as your HD copies are good, you don't
need to go to the PAR2 files, but should one develop a problem, you can
fix it with the PAR2 files. Ha
On Thu, 2005-12-29 at 21:24 +0700, David Garamond wrote:
> I found out about par2 a few days ago and I think it's absolutely
> great. And I think I've grasped the basic concept. But does anyone
> know how to use par2 to accomplish the following:
>
> Suppose I have 500
I found out about par2 a few days ago and I think it's absolutely
great. And I think I've grasped the basic concept. But does anyone
know how to use par2 to accomplish the following:
Suppose I have 5000MB of data. That's a bit over 7 CDs (or 1 DVD). Can
I backup this data to,
21 matches
Mail list logo
