On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Francis Galiegue <fgalie...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Christopher Morrow > <morrowc.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > [....] >>> >>> What I mean is that if there is disk corruption on the server hosting >>> the drafts (which can happen post write), rsync will happily send the >>> checksum of the corrupted draft. Git's mechanism makes such a >>> probability infinitesimal. >> >> wait, so.. if the disk fails things go bad... I'm confused. >> > > If the disk goes bad so as to provoke a misread of a sector, post > write, the file is effectively corrupted. If this happens with git, > the checksum calculated on write will fail to match, and the > corruption is detected. >
you seem to be protecting against a very, very, very uncommon failure... I think you'd be better off protecting against a host of much more common failure modes, eh?
