<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Alex Carver <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:agcarver+ale@acarver.net" target="_blank">agcarver+ale@acarver.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div id=":265" class="a3s" style="overflow:hidden">I understand that it's not a file format itself but it does require an<br>
additional utility to implement the method (the parchive client) and<br>
that's what I'm not allowed to use. Generating the parity files would<br>
just be a waste of time in this case because I would not be able to get<br>
the utility approved. The current approved method for corruption<br>
mitigation is multiple media types and duplicate copies (e.g. a magnetic<br>
copy, an optical copy, a hard copy for things that can be printed, etc.)<br>
<br>
I'll certainly consider it for my personal data storage because it looks<br>
like a good thing to have, but I just can't do it at work. This is why<br>
there are ten hard drives, many spindles of disc blanks, and lots of<br>
binders at my desk.</div></blockquote></div><br>I am glad I do not work where you work. Redundancy doesn't imply corruption mitigation. And refusing to allow such to be implemented because the tool isn't "old" is asinine.<br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>James Sumners<br><a href="http://james.sumners.info/" target="_blank">http://james.sumners.info/</a> (technical profile)</div><div><a href="http://jrfom.com/" target="_blank">http://jrfom.com/</a> (personal site)</div><div><a href="http://haplo.bandcamp.com/" target="_blank">http://haplo.bandcamp.com/</a> (band page)</div></div></div></div></div>
</div></div>