On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 05:18:33PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> OK this might be in the stupid questions category, but I'm not
>> understanding the purpose of computing hash collisions with -ss. Or
>> more correctly, why
On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 05:18:33PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> OK this might be in the stupid questions category, but I'm not
> understanding the purpose of computing hash collisions with -ss. Or
> more correctly, why it's taking so much longer than -s.
>
> It seems like what we'd want is every
On 2017年11月12日 04:12, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 11/11/2017 04:48 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>
>> On 2017年11月11日 11:13, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
>>> On 11/11/2017 03:30 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>>
One more chance to recover is never a bad idea.
>>>
>>> It is a bad idea. The
OK this might be in the stupid questions category, but I'm not
understanding the purpose of computing hash collisions with -ss. Or
more correctly, why it's taking so much longer than -s.
It seems like what we'd want is every filename to have the same hash,
but for the file to go through a PBKDF
Hi,
On 11/11/2017 04:48 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
> On 2017年11月11日 11:13, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
>> On 11/11/2017 03:30 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> One more chance to recover is never a bad idea.
>>
>> It is a bad idea. The *only* case you can recover from is when you
>> freeze the
On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Zak Kohler wrote:
> It seems that since the errors were due to a very slight instability in
> computer due to overclock, the online and offline scrub's causing different
> stresses or paths. Could it be that one is telling the drives to use