<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hesela new publications</title><link>https://hesela.com/</link><description>New analyses by their recorded publication date.</description><language>en</language><atom:link href="https://hesela.com/feeds/publications.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>eMMC, UFS and RPMB: interface, boot and security boundaries</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/emmc-ufs-rpmb-boundaries/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/emmc-ufs-rpmb-boundaries/#publication-emmc-ufs-rpmb-boundaries</guid><pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>How managed flash differs from raw NAND, why eMMC and UFS are not interchangeable interfaces, and why RPMB authentication is neither encryption nor a backup.</description></item>
<item><title>iSCSI identity, sessions and recovery: what a second portal does not prove</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/iscsi-identity-sessions-recovery/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/iscsi-identity-sessions-recovery/#publication-iscsi-identity-sessions-recovery</guid><pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>Separate iSCSI names, portals, sessions, command ordering and recovery levels, with a source-checked distinction between projected and measured performance.</description></item>
<item><title>Magnetic retention: why 60 kBT is not an expiry date</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/magnetic-retention-time-and-probability/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/magnetic-retention-time-and-probability/#publication-magnetic-retention-time-and-probability</guid><pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>A reproducible two-state model separates first reversal, final-state error and magnetization decay, and shows why a mean energy barrier cannot predict retention.</description></item>
<item><title>Memory-mapped files: visibility, size and synchronization</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/mmap-visibility-size-durability/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/mmap-visibility-size-durability/#publication-mmap-visibility-size-durability</guid><pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>Seven reproducible Linux checks distinguish mapped visibility, file size, partial-page tails, SIGBUS and sync argument errors from power-loss durability.</description></item>
<item><title>NVMe over Fabrics: transports, discovery and security boundaries</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/nvme-fabrics-transports-discovery/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/nvme-fabrics-transports-discovery/#publication-nvme-fabrics-transports-discovery</guid><pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>Distinguish NVMe/TCP, NVMe/RDMA and NVMe/FC from discovery, path selection and security, without treating a transport label as a performance guarantee.</description></item>
<item><title>Phi failure detectors: suspicion is not a failure probability</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/phi-failure-detectors-suspicion/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/phi-failure-detectors-suspicion/#publication-phi-failure-detectors-suspicion</guid><pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>What a phi score measures, why Cassandra&apos;s score differs from the original model, and why suspecting a replica does not fence it. Includes reproducible synthetic examples.</description></item>
<item><title>SIEVE cache eviction: one bit is not scan resistance</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/sieve-cache-eviction-traces/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/sieve-cache-eviction-traces/#publication-sieve-cache-eviction-traces</guid><pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>Explain SIEVE versus CLOCK and LRU, replay cache traces and FIFO capacity anomalies, and separate miss counts from storage performance claims.</description></item>
<item><title>Sleeping disks: one readable block is not a recoverable array</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/sleeping-disks-partial-reconstruction/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/sleeping-disks-partial-reconstruction/#publication-sleeping-disks-partial-reconstruction</guid><pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>An exhaustive check of two historical XOR codes separates serving a read without spin-up from recovering every data symbol. Includes code, all 512 availability states and explicit limits.</description></item>
<item><title>Unnamed files: publishing is not replacing</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/tmpfile-publication-rename-contracts/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/tmpfile-publication-rename-contracts/#publication-tmpfile-publication-rename-contracts</guid><pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>A native Linux observation separates O_TMPFILE staging, linkat publication, no-replace rename and atomic exchange from crash durability.</description></item>
<item><title>B-epsilon trees: visible updates, deferred work</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/b-epsilon-trees-buffered-updates/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/b-epsilon-trees-buffered-updates/#publication-b-epsilon-trees-buffered-updates</guid><pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>How buffered tree updates remain query-visible, why blind upserts differ from read-modify-write, and why equal flush counts can hide different completion times.</description></item>
<item><title>CMR is not refresh-free: adjacent-track interference in HDDs</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/hdd-adjacent-track-interference-refresh/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/hdd-adjacent-track-interference-refresh/#publication-hdd-adjacent-track-interference-refresh</guid><pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>Repeated HDD writes can trigger protective refreshes even with CMR. Separate write-induced ATI, read-channel interference and SMR band rewrites before diagnosing latency.</description></item>
<item><title>HDD workload ratings: count reads, check the clock</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/hdd-annualized-workload-rate/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/hdd-annualized-workload-rate/#publication-hdd-annualized-workload-rate</guid><pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>An HDD workload rating is not SSD TBW or a failure countdown. Power-on hours, read traffic and maintenance scans change what the annualized number means.</description></item>
<item><title>HDD write verification: completion, persistence and comparison</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/hdd-write-verification-iraw/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/hdd-write-verification-iraw/#publication-hdd-write-verification-iraw</guid><pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>Read-after-write verification, IRAW and SCSI VERIFY answer different questions from flush or FUA. Learn what a successful check does and does not establish.</description></item>
<item><title>LMDB readers: a stable snapshot can exhaust a fixed map</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/lmdb-readers-page-reuse-map-full/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/lmdb-readers-page-reuse-map-full/#publication-lmdb-readers-page-reuse-map-full</guid><pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>A controlled LMDB experiment separates reader lifetime, reusable pages and map capacity: why a live reader can stop writes without holding the writer mutex.</description></item>
<item><title>Why deleted NFS files become .nfs files</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/nfs-silly-rename-open-unlink/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/nfs-silly-rename-open-unlink/#publication-nfs-silly-rename-open-unlink</guid><pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>Silly rename, open-file preservation and a misleading Linux comment: trace NFS deletion from the 1985 paper to a pinned implementation and RFC erratum.</description></item>
<item><title>RAIDZ expansion: why old blocks keep their parity cost</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/raidz-expansion-parity-capacity/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/raidz-expansion-parity-capacity/#publication-raidz-expansion-parity-capacity</guid><pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>Reflow spreads old blocks across more disks without changing their data-to-parity ratio. A reproducible model separates retained parity overhead, reported space and snapshot-aware rewriting.</description></item>
<item><title>Btrfs tree logs: why a read-only mount can still replay writes</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/btrfs-tree-log-read-only-replay/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/btrfs-tree-log-read-only-replay/#publication-btrfs-tree-log-read-only-replay</guid><pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>Separate Btrfs fsync logging, transaction commit, read-only mount recovery and destructive log clearing, with a reproducible Linux 6.15/6.16 option audit.</description></item>
<item><title>F2FS: when a successful fsync is not a recovery promise</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/f2fs-checkpoint-fsync-recovery/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/f2fs-checkpoint-fsync-recovery/#publication-f2fs-checkpoint-fsync-recovery</guid><pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>A pinned Linux source audit separates F2FS checkpoints, roll-forward recovery and the fsync success path when checkpointing is disabled.</description></item>
<item><title>Fast file clones: where the copying cost goes</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/file-clones-deferred-copy-cost/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/file-clones-deferred-copy-cost/#publication-file-clones-deferred-copy-cost</guid><pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>Separate reflinks, hard links and in-kernel copies; trace deferred costs, Btrfs maintenance, shared-space accounting and FAST 2020&apos;s research limits.</description></item>
<item><title>NVMe multipath: ANA access states and Linux path policies</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/nvme-multipath-ana-path-selection/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/nvme-multipath-ana-path-selection/#publication-nvme-multipath-ana-path-selection</guid><pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>Separate NVMe namespace identity from ANA access states: NSID scope, identifier lifetime, Linux path policies and controller-level queue accounting.</description></item>
<item><title>Optical disc lifetime: error thresholds, percentiles and uncertainty</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/optical-disc-lifetime-estimates/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/optical-disc-lifetime-estimates/#publication-optical-disc-lifetime-estimates</guid><pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>Optical-disc lifetime is not a warranty: CD/DVD error units, survival estimates, Blu-ray HTL/LTH, and a source-level check of M-DISC longevity claims.</description></item>
<item><title>Soft updates: consistent metadata without a full journal</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/soft-updates-metadata-ordering/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/soft-updates-metadata-ordering/#publication-soft-updates-metadata-ordering</guid><pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>Why write ordering can leave reclaimable space instead of unsafe pointers, and why background fsck and metadata consistency do not prove application durability.</description></item>
<item><title>XFS delayed logging: which commit is durable?</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/xfs-delayed-logging-commit-boundaries/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/xfs-delayed-logging-commit-boundaries/#publication-xfs-delayed-logging-commit-boundaries</guid><pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>Separate XFS commit from persistence, relogging from deferred recovery, and journal atomicity from online visibility.</description></item>
<item><title>Ext4 journal replay: why old writes must sometimes be skipped</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/ext4-journal-replay-revocation/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/ext4-journal-replay-revocation/#publication-ext4-journal-replay-revocation</guid><pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>JBD2 replay, checksum failure paths and ambiguous log tails, with source-checked recovery boundaries and reproducible counterexamples.</description></item>
<item><title>Filesystem aging: the state SSD warm-up does not describe</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/filesystem-aging-free-space-fragmentation/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/filesystem-aging-free-space-fragmentation/#publication-filesystem-aging-free-space-fragmentation</guid><pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>Separate filesystem layout history, free-space fragmentation and SSD conditioning, with three USENIX studies and a reproducible allocation counterexample.</description></item>
<item><title>io_uring: completion is not a durable commit</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/io-uring-completion-ordering-durability/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/io-uring-completion-ordering-durability/#publication-io-uring-completion-ordering-durability</guid><pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>io_uring write ordering, protection information, cancellation CQEs and linked timeouts: what each result proves, and what still needs synchronization.</description></item>
<item><title>RocksDB: a WAL sync is not a memtable flush</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/rocksdb-wal-flush-manifest-boundaries/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/rocksdb-wal-flush-manifest-boundaries/#publication-rocksdb-wal-flush-manifest-boundaries</guid><pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>RocksDB WAL sync, memtable flush, write stalls, read snapshots, checkpoints and backups have distinct recovery and retention contracts.</description></item>
<item><title>SMB handles and leases: reconnect is not write durability</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/smb-handles-leases-durability/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/smb-handles-leases-durability/#publication-smb-handles-leases-durability</guid><pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>Durable and persistent SMB handles, caching leases and write-through protect different boundaries. Learn what to verify after a disconnect or failover.</description></item>
<item><title>SQLite WAL checkpoint starvation: success is not completion</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/sqlite-wal-checkpoint-starvation/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/sqlite-wal-checkpoint-starvation/#publication-sqlite-wal-checkpoint-starvation</guid><pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>Measured SQLite WAL checkpoints and stale-snapshot retries: why restarting a transaction can still overwrite an update when the application reuses old values.</description></item>
<item><title>ZFS ZIL and SLOG: the boundary between logging and persistence</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/zfs-zil-slog-durability-boundaries/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/zfs-zil-slog-durability-boundaries/#publication-zfs-zil-slog-durability-boundaries</guid><pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>ZIL, SLOG and transaction groups protect different boundaries. Pinned OpenZFS code explains indirect records, sync settings and misleading log-byte counters.</description></item>
<item><title>Backup verification is not a restore test</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/backup-verification-is-not-a-restore-test/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/backup-verification-is-not-a-restore-test/#publication-backup-verification-is-not-a-restore-test</guid><pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>Separate backup completion, integrity, freshness and usable recovery, with reproducible SQLite and rsync experiments and explicit limits.</description></item>
<item><title>O_DIRECT alignment: query the file, not a fixed block size</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/o-direct-alignment-by-kernel/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/o-direct-alignment-by-kernel/#publication-o-direct-alignment-by-kernel</guid><pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>Query O_DIRECT per-file alignment and distinguish cache hints, prefetch, NOWAIT and mincore residency from actual I/O and durable writes.</description></item>
<item><title>Parity declustering: less load per disk, not fewer reads</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/parity-declustering-rebuild-load/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/parity-declustering-rebuild-load/#publication-parity-declustering-rebuild-load</guid><pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>An executable eight-disk example separates repair-read volume, survivor load and stripe width, with evidence from ASPLOS, Panasas and OpenZFS dRAID.</description></item>
<item><title>Persistent memory: DAX is not a durable commit</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/pmem-persistence-domains-dax/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/pmem-persistence-domains-dax/#publication-pmem-persistence-domains-dax</guid><pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>ADR, eADR and MAP_SYNC protect different boundaries. A source-linked review and executable crash-state example separate addressability, visibility, persistence and atomicity.</description></item>
<item><title>Reed-Solomon recovery needs more than a fragment count</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/reed-solomon-matrix-recovery-guarantees/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/reed-solomon-matrix-recovery-guarantees/#publication-reed-solomon-matrix-recovery-guarantees</guid><pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>Exact GF(7) examples separate MDS recovery, missing fragments and silent corruption, showing why even a unique decoded answer can be wrong.</description></item>
<item><title>Replica repair: what has actually converged?</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/replica-repair-coverage/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/replica-repair-coverage/#publication-replica-repair-coverage</guid><pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>Replica repair coverage, quorum overlap and set reconciliation: why matching keys, successful responses and compact summaries do not prove identical durable state.</description></item>
<item><title>Snapshots and backups: which failures can you recover from?</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/snapshot-backup-recovery-boundaries/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/snapshot-backup-recovery-boundaries/#publication-snapshot-backup-recovery-boundaries</guid><pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>Separate snapshot consistency, independent recovery copies and RPO/RTO targets, with source-backed OpenZFS, PostgreSQL and VSS examples.</description></item>
<item><title>Sparse files, preallocation and thin-pool capacity</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/sparse-files-preallocation-thin-capacity/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/sparse-files-preallocation-thin-capacity/#publication-sparse-files-preallocation-thin-capacity</guid><pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>File size, allocated blocks and thin-pool headroom are different measurements. Learn what preallocation, hole punching and zero-filled reads actually establish.</description></item>
<item><title>Bloom filters: optimize the lookup, not each filter</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/bloom-filters-lsm-read-cost/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/bloom-filters-lsm-read-cost/#publication-bloom-filters-lsm-read-cost</guid><pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>LSM lookup costs, filter retention and counting limits, with reproducible allocation, deletion and memory examples grounded in primary sources.</description></item>
<item><title>Content-defined chunking: boundaries are not identity</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/content-defined-chunking-boundaries/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/content-defined-chunking-boundaries/#publication-content-defined-chunking-boundaries</guid><pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>Reproducible FastCDC examples show how file framing, parameter changes and terminal chunks alter measured reuse, even when file contents remain unchanged.</description></item>
<item><title>Crash-consistency tests: the oracle is part of the result</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/crash-testing-oracles-and-bounds/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/crash-testing-oracles-and-bounds/#publication-crash-testing-oracles-and-bounds</guid><pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>What ALICE, CrashMonkey/ACE, SQLite and Ananke actually test: fault boundaries, separate recovery outcomes and an executable correctness-oracle example.</description></item>
<item><title>Key-value separation: the cleaning bill moves elsewhere</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/key-value-separation-cleaning-cost/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/key-value-separation-cleaning-cost/#publication-key-value-separation-cleaning-cost</guid><pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>WiscKey, HashKV and BlobDB separate value movement from key sorting. A reproducible byte model shows when value-log cleaning can erase the saving.</description></item>
<item><title>Linux atomic writes: untorn does not mean durable</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/linux-atomic-writes-durability/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/linux-atomic-writes-durability/#publication-linux-atomic-writes-durability</guid><pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>Atomic writes, durable completion and powersafe overwrite protect different boundaries. Check Linux request geometry and SQLite&apos;s outside-range assumption.</description></item>
<item><title>LSM tombstones: deleted is not yet reclaimed</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/lsm-tombstones-delete-persistence/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/lsm-tombstones-delete-persistence/#publication-lsm-tombstones-delete-persistence</guid><pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>Separate delete visibility, crash durability and space reclamation: snapshots, Lethe&apos;s delete-aware compaction and RocksDB&apos;s range-tombstone safeguards.</description></item>
<item><title>NFS stable writes: what COMMIT, flush and FUA actually promise</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/nfs-stable-writes-flush-fua/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/nfs-stable-writes-flush-fua/#publication-nfs-stable-writes-flush-fua</guid><pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>NFSv3 stability, COMMIT verifiers and Linux flush/FUA: distinguish durable writes from cache visibility, with bounded NFSv4 delegation comparisons.</description></item>
<item><title>NVMe FDP: placement handles are not physical addresses</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/nvme-fdp-placement-and-limits/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/nvme-fdp-placement-and-limits/#publication-nvme-fdp-placement-and-limits</guid><pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>How reclaim units, handles and placement identifiers fit together, why FDP differs from ZNS, and what a credible write-amplification comparison must measure.</description></item>
<item><title>Object ETags: checksums and conditional writes are different</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/object-etags-checksums-conditional-writes/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/object-etags-checksums-conditional-writes/#publication-object-etags-checksums-conditional-writes</guid><pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>S3 ETags, full-object and composite checksums, version IDs and write preconditions: what each validates, and how to avoid checking download metadata instead of bytes.</description></item>
<item><title>Optical disc rot: what public ageing studies measured, which error counters (BLER, PI sum 8) warn first, and what they cannot predict</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/optical-disc-rot-error-rate-signals/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/optical-disc-rot-error-rate-signals/#publication-optical-disc-rot-error-rate-signals</guid><pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>Recordable discs fail mainly because the organic dye layer breaks down or, on discs with a silver reflective layer, the metal corrodes, and the public tell-tale is a rising correctable-error counter before data is lost: block error rate (BLER, counted at the first CD decoder) against a specified maximum of 220 per second on CD, and parity-inner errors summed over eight blocks (PI sum 8) against a maximum of 280 on DVD. In the NIST and Library of Congress study of discs bought in 2005, all 7 CD-R products reached an estimated life of more than 30 years at 25 C and 50% relative humidity (5 of 7 more than 45 years), while the 15 DVD products spread from under 15 years (2 products) to more than 45 years (7 products). Canada&apos;s conservation institute ranks a gold-layer phthalocyanine CD-R above 100 years and a dye or non-dye single-layer Blu-ray recordable at 5 to 10 years, and says discs recorded with poor technique can fail in as little as 2 to 10 years. These are accelerated-ageing estimates of temperature and humidity effects only, for disc products of 2005 or earlier, so they rank media and set expectations but are not a failure rate for any disc in use today.</description></item>
<item><title>Two clocks for one GitLab.com loss: 00:00 UTC and 23:30 UTC, at least 5,000 projects in the postmortem, 5,037 in the log</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/postmortem-timeline-log-unknown/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/postmortem-timeline-log-unknown/#publication-postmortem-timeline-log-unknown</guid><pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>On GitLab.com’s one primary and one hot-standby secondary, the 10 February 2017 postmortem prints two ends for database rows lost on 31 January 2017: the introduction says 17:20 and 00:00 UTC on that date, and the data-loss section says 17:20–23:30 UTC. It says the exact loss is hard to estimate: at least 5,000 projects, 5,000 comments, and roughly 700 users. The incident log archived at 2017-02-02 03:47:19 UTC prints ±6 hours, 5,037 projects, ±4,979 comments, and 707 users that were hard to confirm from Kibana. Those figures are vendor claims, not a census of objects that stayed gone. The same postmortem says projects restored from remaining Git data came back only in basic form, without issues or merge requests.</description></item>
<item><title>Replication acknowledgements: received, durable, applied</title><link>https://hesela.com/analyses/replication-acknowledgements-durability-lag/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://hesela.com/analyses/replication-acknowledgements-durability-lag/#publication-replication-acknowledgements-durability-lag</guid><pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>Compare replication acknowledgements, WAL retention and logical failover readiness; distinguish durable writes, replay and missing or unusable slots.</description></item></channel></rss>
