Suppose, hypothetically, that someone with malicious intent installed an advertising billboard, next to your home, that falsely accused you of having committed a horrific crime. Suppose, further, that you lost your job and your family because of the false allegations on that billboard. Would you work to get that billboard taken down or would you put up your own billboard to deny the allegations and call it a day?
Proving disinformation wrong does not make it go away and the answer to malicious speech is not more speech.
You’ve proven the purpose to YouTube taking the video down here: to avoid being sued because misinformation CAUSES DAMAGE.
You would “assume” the people you work with are “intelligent” enough to know better?
Man. You have a disgust for an imaginary enemy that’s very hypocritical and oxymoronic.
It so easy for people to invent an enemy nowadays. Youtube just behaved exactly how you described you would in this metaphor, but instead of taking the closet rational explanation, you have to invent an enemy that aligns to this emotionally driven agenda.
We’re all on the same team. You’re just refusing to settle down and see that.
It’s like the whole damn world is so starving for conflict to the point of whipping up imaginary tales to stoke it out... why???
If zombie novels change the infection from biological to psychological and the thing those zombies starve for isn’t flesh but relentless hatred, that novel about people eating their own families becomes a true prophecy.
Oh would you people please stop pretending like we understand this pandemic perfectly and all it will take is masks and 6ft of space to make it disappear. It’s ALL speculation, no one has the perfect solution, they’re just opinions. Stop confusing multiple opinions as fact.
The video that was taken down and resulted in the strike was a claim that a guaranteed vaccine existed. It sounds like you would also disagree with that claim, and believe it to be misinformation, as YouTube did, in this case.
Stop confusing scientific consensus as "multiple opinions". You are muddying the waters to shove your right-wing indoctrinated crap in front of people.
It’s all the tracking cookies between web entities you didn’t know have a relationship that’s the issue. Being logged in to facebook and then visiting pornhub is enough for facebook to know what porn you watch.
Just add another VDev. For example lets say you have 32 drives. It makes more sense to structure it as 4 x 8drive raidz2 instances rather than 2 x 16drive raidz3. Because then you will only have to add 8 drives vs 16 to expand the pool. You could incrementally expand your ZPool by adding new vdevs of the same or larger size. You could technically make your vdevs 4 drives in raidz1 but id recommend at least 6 drives per vdev in raidz2 or greater
More than half the time in my experience it’s usually a failing sata cable or power-supply if the hard drive continues to functions on boot but eventually goes to degraded due to checksum/read errors. Sometimes the data is just fine but a read error occurs between the drive and controller which ZFS interprets as a failng disk
modern drives have onboard diagnostics which can report errors directly to the OS. I'd be very surprised if a modern file system was unaware of this. I'd also be surprised if users of alternative file systems didn't test a suspected failing drive before concluding it was faulty
Hard drives lie. SMART data is not thorough and it is not trustworthy. Across dozens of drive failures over the years, I've never seen SMART predict a failure before ZFS detected data loss or the OS reported 'drive is slow'. SMART is not worth the effort to monitor.
Filesystems don't read SMART data. You might have a separate daemon which monitors SMART.
ZFS checksumming is amazing for this. You know, without doubt, which file(s) are bad. You can still use failing or unknown quality drives because the checksumming will protect you from silent data corruption.
SMART marking drives as failed is usually super late. But if you monitor the raw values for the important parameters (unreadable, reallocated, etc sectors), I've had good luck with replacing drives before software notices. At least for spinning drives; SSD failues were way more rare, but resulted in the drives completely disappearing from the bus, and no reliable prefail indicators. I did have one SSD go through a big reallocation that tanked throughput and the alerts from throughput and the alerts from SMART thresholds fired simultaneously.
Of course, that's great for a server farm; in home use monitoring is a lot less structured.
Expensive enterprise drives are generally better at smart stats. Of course your mileage varies by vendor. Desktop drives on the other hand are completely untrustworthy.
The error is occurring between the drive and the sata controller on the mobo. There’s also the whole issue of whether the OS or the drive is responsible for error handling. If the the drives are SAS drives, typically the OS uses fire and forget methodologies for write commands. Other drives might not support that and require zfs to handle errors at the software/kernel level
It would but I encountered a situation once, where when I would remove the drives of the array and test the disk 1 by 1 they would all work. It wasn't until all the drives were powered on and under max write stress would the power-supply under-volt to drives randomly making it appear as multiple drives were all failing.
Exactly, especially when one of the few things Windows does a lot better than linux (at least historically) is the seamless integration of multiple video cards for having many screens which allow for more graphical interactions
