• he/him

I occasionally write long posts but you should assume I'm talking out of my ass until proved otherwise. I do like writing shit sometimes.  

 

50/50 chance of suit pictures end up here or on the Art Directory account. Good luck.

 

Be 18+ or be gone you kids act fuckin' weird.

 

pfp by wackyanimal


 

I tag all of my posts complaining about stuff #complaining, feel free to muffle that if you'd like a more positive cohost experience.

 


 
Art and suit stuff: @PlumPanAD

 


 
"DMs":
Feel free to message as long as you have something to talk about!


In the video Jon Bois did about the 250something point college basketball game, near the beginning he describes some footage of a very fast, offense heavy form of basketball as "radioactive". I've always stuck with that description, something about the concept of a video being corrosive is a fun concept (as long as you don't think about it too hard).

Videos like this are highly corrosive.

Because it's a good video, the drive sounds absolutely lovely. But it's also got a LOT of issues. Like, the drive itself. Tons of bad sectors, errors, etc etc. But the drive still works, despite the issues. They can be mitigated to an extent and the drive can still serve some amount of data back the same way it was stored.

This is super toxic because I'm now of the mindset that, if a drive will still return most data without a significant time delay, it should still be used. When you apply this concept to drives in an array you start picking up some very bad behavior, of running drives that really have no right to still be there because, if they're not bad enough for ZFS to put them in time out.... why change it?


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @plumpan's post:

This is literally what is happening to me right now. I have 4 drives in an external RAID bay, and a while ago one of them threw an error. I ordered a replacement drive, but the controller recovered the drive and it's run ever since. Still, it has bad sectors and is probably reducing the performance of the entire array. I ought to replace it, but can't bring myself to do it even though I've had a brand new drive sitting in a box for ages.

I wouldn't trust doing something like this in an array that small to be fair. Especially if it's not ZFS. Normal raid arrays don't verify data on read unless you explicitly set them up to do so (dm-intergrety or old school raid controllers with larger sector sizes for parity data) and a bad drive could just feed you garbage data.

Now if you're running RaidZ2 or Z3 and you can not only take a drive failing but another one failing during the scrub.... then you can really use some shithouse drives.