lazyslacker

In Oracle you’d just set up a user that has limited access and give them those credentials. Creating a few views that pulls in the data they want is a bonus.

The calculations necessary to rebuild a failed drive from parity data stored on the other drives means that for the duration of the time that the array is being rebuilt (aka “resilvered”), you’ll have high activity on the other drives. So during that time there’s an increased chance that a drive that was already on the brink of failure is pushed over the edge. If that happens, your data is gone. Like I said it depends on your risk tolerance. You may not feel like it’s worth it in your situation. I personally only run a raidz1. I accept the risk that entails, just as people who use raidz2 accept the increased risk that entails over raidz3. There’s no limit to the amount of redundancy you can add. The level of redundancy that’s needed is a decision that only you/your organization can make.

I’d say it depends on your circumstances and your tolerance to the possibility of data loss. The general answer to the question is that without using some kind of redundancy, either mirrored disks or RAID, the failure of a single disk would mean you lose your data. This is true for each copy of your data that you have.

Off-site backup is the proper answer to your question. All this really depends on your own tolerance or comfort with the possibility of losing data. The rule of thumb is that there should be at least three different copies of your data, each in a different physical location. For each of them, there should be redundancy of some kind implemented to guard against hardware failure. Redundancy is typically achieved by using mirrored drives or by using RAID of some kind. Also, if you’d like to know, using RAID in which you can only lose one disk in the array is not typically considered a sufficient level of protection because of the possibility of a cascading drive failure during replacement of a failed disk. It should be at least two.

As we both know, the 1918 Spanish flu was unusually virulent, and back then we had no vaccines. Comparing to that flu would not give us useful data. It would be misleading. As you know, I meant today’s flu.

How are their symptoms though? Not bad right? By saying COVID is over I mean the more dangerous forms of it from 2020 and 2021 are gone. It’s barely worse than the flu at this point. I’m not saying people aren’t still getting it. It’s just mostly inconsequential.

That seems like a separate issue. I acknowledge your dread. It is important and should be addressed appropriately. I just don’t think the actual threat that COVID currently poses warrants such dread. You should be more afraid of heart disease, or car accidents, or something like that. Those things kill more people than COVID. Especially in 2023. It’s barely worse than the flu now. I was afraid of 2020 COVID. It’s not the same disease as it was then though.

Opinion: unless you or a loved on has some kind of immune system issue, COVID is pretty much over.

My town actually has a square. It’s nice to have.

Dude even stuff like bowling is too much now. An hour for two people can approach $70 at certain places. Not the bougie places either, those places are even more. I was browsing Google reviews for one place nearby like that and the owner responded saying that they should look for a Groupon.

deleted by creator

I disagree that it was just “slave holding states”. This is obvious to us, maybe, but when presenting the issue to non Americans I think it’s important to be accurate on this. It was meant to give states (slave holding or not) with lower populations a larger voice. It still does that. Our system of government was never meant to be a pure democracy. The president wouldn’t have to care about the priorities of smaller population states at all without the electoral college. They would just have to trust that he’ll keep them in mind.

With all that said though, with how homogenous the county is culturally and with communication and travel barriers between states and between the state and federal governments pretty much non existent, at this point I think it has outlived its usefulness and should be abolished. Also the difference between the most and least populated states are, percentage wise way bigger than they were when the county was founded. Also, if my voice as a populated state dweller is smaller because of this system, it feels less like the president is “my” president because I had less of a say in picking him. At the end of the day the president is everyone’s president equally so the election of the president should be a purely democratic process.

Because developers don’t bother with documentation. They either assert it’s self documenting or they assert whatever it is was always intended to be temporary so it’s not worth documenting.