From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EC36138375 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 19:13:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F250821C043; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 19:13:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 519B121C123 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 19:11:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67B9A33C394 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 19:11:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.431 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.431 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-1.430, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id slOEKuP2jJOG for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 19:11:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E18E33DA88 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 19:11:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TseaR-0006sB-HA for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 20:11:47 +0100 Received: from rrcs-71-40-157-251.se.biz.rr.com ([71.40.157.251]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 20:11:47 +0100 Received: from wireless by rrcs-71-40-157-251.se.biz.rr.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 20:11:47 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: James Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: OT: Fighting bit rot Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 19:11:19 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <50EB2BF7.4040109@binarywings.net> <20130108012016.2f02c68c@khamul.example.com> <50EBCA77.8030603@binarywings.net> <3613897.q2tncFpUrH@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: sea.gmane.org User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) X-Loom-IP: 71.40.157.251 (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/17.0 SeaMonkey/2.14.1) X-Archives-Salt: 1be93d51-a7ec-4f28-8435-3c377441f983 X-Archives-Hash: f20eb4cf82871e7859728c619a57a8f3 Volker Armin Hemmann googlemail.com> writes: > btw, the solution is zfs and weekly scrub runs. I have similar concerns as Florian. What's the consensus (opinions) on btrfs? I'm building up several new system, with large video file archives. I was going to try BTRFS on the entire workstation. However, several comments here seem to suggest to make a partition for video using BTRFS and ext4 for the rest of the system ? I intend keep duplicates on another system, via rsync, until such time that BTFRS is stable by consensus. Bitrot (silent corruption?) is a concern for video that is to be mostly archived and only accessed once every few years: similar to the poster's original concern. Comments/guidance on ZFS vs BTFRS are welcome. I never used ZFS; googling suggests lots of disdain for ZFS ? Maybe someone knows a good article or wiki discussion where the various merits of the currently available file systems are presented? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS James