Us seniors are gonna have so much work a few years down the road. ☺️

I’m dying 🤣

As a leftist, I oppose far-right development.

Goddamn!

Yeah, I’m in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) in Canada. There’s 40+ nodes on the map that I’ve discovered by sitting on my balcony and 70+ nodes altogether:

I expected way fewer than that!

Yup. There are people occasionally writing in LongFast.

I know, I kid, but yes, I just got it because it’s cheap enough to try. In reality the only use case I envision right now is have a couple of units in the drawer for emergency scenarios.

Stop attacking me. 😂

But yeah, no use case other than - checking if it works. I’ll probably setup a standalone node on my balcony and leave it be to strengthen the network.

I just got a unit couple of days ago and it… just works. It’s quite impressive.

I’m writing here to give my sincere applause to this effort.

Why can’t I remember the find parameters?

I don’t know. Perhaps write a couple of aliases?

Yeah I have no hope for an American FOSS design.

Perhaps an EU-backed one might appear at some point.

Recently I stumbled upon a Chinese team working on a FOSS pair of cores, with source in GitHub. I think they were aiming at competing with A76 and N2. Supposedly they’re well underway.

Found it

If these guys (or any others) tape out a competitive FOSE chip, it’ll change the world. If it’s a decent project, everyone and their mother will fork it. And we’ll get chips that cost just a bit over the silicon and packaging cost.

A high performance RISC-V CPU core.

Right so I guess the question of 3 is whether it means 3 backups or 3 copies. If we take it literally - 3 copies, then it does protect from user error only. If 3 backups, it protects against hardware failure too.

E: Seagate calls them copies and explicitly says the implementer can choose how the copies are distributed across the 2 media. The woodchipper scenario would be handled by the 2 media requirement.

Hm I wonder why snapshots wouldn’t satisfy 3. Copies on the same disk like /file, /backup1/file, /backup2/file should satisfy 3. Why wouldn’t snapshots be equivalent if 3 doesn’t guard against filesystem or hardware failure? Just thinking and curious to see opinion.

• Primary ZFS pool with automatic snapshots
  • Provides 3+ copies of the files via snapshots (3)
• Secondary ZFS pool at a different location replicates the primary
  • Provides more copies of the files (3)
  • Provides second media (2)
  • Is off-site (1)

Does this make sense?

If Raid is backup, then Unraid is?

Try ZFS send if you have ZFS on the other side. It’s insane. No file IO, just snap and time for the network transfer of the delta.

Every hour. Could do it more frequently if needed.

It depends on how resource intensive the backup process is.

Consider an 800GB Immich instance.

Using Duplicity or rsync takes 1 hour per backup. 99% of the time is spent in traversing the directory structure and checking which files have changed. 1% is spent into transferring the difference to the backup. Any backup system that operates on top of the file system would take this much. In addition, unless you’re using something that can take snapshots of the filesystem, you have to stop Immich during the backup process in order to prevent backing up an invalid app state.

Using ZFS send on the other hand (with syncoid) takes less than 5 seconds to discover the differences and the rest of the time is spent on the data transfer, at 100MB/s in my case. Since ZFS send is based on snapshots, I don’t have to stop the service either.

When I used Duplicity to backup, I would backup once week because the backup process was long and heavy on the disk array. Since I switched to ZFS send, I do it once an hour because there’s almost no visible impact.

I’m now in the process of migrating my laptop to ZFS on root in order to be able to utilize ZFS send for regular full system backups. If successful, eventually I’ll move all my machines to ZFS on root.

What’s the second B stand for?