| |||||||||||||
The Journal - a proposed syslog replacementThe Journal - a proposed syslog replacementPosted Nov 19, 2011 2:11 UTC (Sat) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129)In reply to: The Journal - a proposed syslog replacement by jubal Parent article: The Journal - a proposed syslog replacement
You can't trust data from a potentially damaged disk anyway. The only sane thing to do is make sure that your backup infrastructure is in place, so you don't need the data from the damaged disk. Or, if you can't afford to lose the data between two backups, use a RAID array.
(Log in to post comments)
The Journal - a proposed syslog replacement Posted Nov 19, 2011 2:24 UTC (Sat) by jubal (subscriber, #67202) [Link] You do realise that you might be looking for the data written directly before the crash? (Also: no, RAID is not a silver bullet, and please don't tell me that a SAN or NAS storage appliance will always prevent data loss it should, but sometimes it can't). And remote log daemon won't help much if it's the remote log daemon's storage that just evaporated.
The Journal - a proposed syslog replacement Posted Nov 19, 2011 3:16 UTC (Sat) by cwillu (subscriber, #67268) [Link]
"Trusted" is not a binary distinction.
Data off a broken disk isn't as reliable as data from a functional disk. However, data off a broken disk isn't completely unreliable, and data from a functional disk isn't completely reliable.
What matters is whether the data is useful, and in my experience, that data sitting on a broken disk is frequently useful.
|
|||||||||||||