I’ve seen a trend where people move the goalposts on the reasons they’re not able to switch. “If only this program worked I could switch”, but when that program is ported it’ll be a new excuse next. Sooner or later you’ll have to draw a line and say “99% of my stuff works, the 1% that doesn’t can get bent”.

Just like real life you can also ignore the crime and say “that would take too much effort to solve”.

This is really similar to reminds me of this post, which I think about a lot.

Edit: hopefully slightly more accurate

Do not the animatronic.

1. Don’t leave that much money alone with PayPal, they have been known to close accounts for random reasons
2. Great job on the lesbian furry drawing scheme to anon
3. Don’t keep that much money in cash. Most of that money should be invested and working for you in the market instead of deteriorating in an account that doesn’t even pay interest

You can either promote JPEG-XL or say yiff for the rest of your life. The choice is yours.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mx_(title)

Gender-neutral title. Most commonly I think it’s like “Mix”.

Shout out to Grant O’Brien’s mishap.

Mirrored vdevs allow growth by adding a pair at a time, yes. Healing works with mirrors, because each of the two disks in a mirror are supposed to have the same data as each other. When a read or scrub happens, if there’s any checksum failures it will replace the failed block on Disk1 with Disk2’s copy of that block.

Many ZFS’ers swear by mirrored vdevs because they give you the best performance, they’re more flexible, and resilvering from a failed mirror disk is an order of magnitude faster than resilvering from a failed RAIDZ - leaving less time for a second disk failure. The big downside is that they eat 50% of your disk capacity. I personally run mirrored vdevs because it’s more flexible for a small home NAS, and I make up for some of the disk inefficiency by being able to buy any-size disks on sale and throw them in whenever I see a good price.

The main problem with self-healing is that ZFS needs to have access to two copies of data, usually solved by having 2+ disks. When you expose an mdadm device ZFS will only perceive one disk and one copy of data, so it won’t try to store 2 copies of data anywhere. Underneath, mdadm will be storing the two copies of data, so any healing would need to be handled by mdadm directly instead. ZFS normally auto-heals when it reads data and when it scrubs, but in this setup mdadm would need to start the healing process through whatever measures it has (probably just scrubbing?)

ZFS can grow if it has extra space on the disk. The obvious answer is that you should really be using RAIDZ2 instead if you are going with ZFS, but I assume you don’t like the inflexibility of RAIDZ resizing. RAIDZ expansion has been merged into OpenZFS, but it will probably take a year or so to actually land in the next release. RAIDZ2 could still be an option if you aren’t planning on growing before it lands. I don’t have much experience with mdadm, but my guess is that with mdadm+ZFS, features like self-healing won’t work because ZFS isn’t aware of the RAID at a low-level. I would expect it to be slightly janky in a lot of ways compared to RAIDZ, and if you still want to try it you may become the foremost expert on the combination.

ZFS without redundancy is not great in the sense that redundancy is ideal in all scenarios, but it’s still a modern filesystem with a lot of good features, just like BTRFS. The main problem will be that it can detect data corruption but not heal it automatically. Transparent compression, snapshotting, data checksums, copy-on-write (power loss resiliency), and reflinking are modern features of both ZFS/BTRFS, and BTRFS additionally offers offline-deduplication, meaning you can deduplicate any data block that exists twice in your pool without incurring the massive resources that ZFS deduplication requires. ZFS is the more mature of the two, and I would use that if you’ve already got ZFS tooling set up on your machine.

Note that the TrueNAS forums spread a lot of FUD about ZFS, but ZFS without redundancy is ok. I would take anything alarmist from there with a grain of salt. BTRFS and ZFS both store 2 copies of all metadata by default, so bitrot will be auto-healed on a filesystem level when it’s read or scrubbed.

Edit: As for write amplification, just use ashift=12 and don’t worry too much about it.

ZFS doesn’t eat your SSD endurance. If anything it is the best option since you can enable ZSTD compression for smaller reads/writes and reads will often come from the RAM-based ARC cache instead of your SSDs. ZFS is also practically allergic to rewriting data that already exists in the pool, so once something is written it should never cost a write again - especially if you’re using OpenZFS 2.2 or above which has reflinking.

My guess is you were reading about SLOG devices, which do need heavier endurance as they replicate every write coming into your HDD array (every synchronous write, anyway). SLOG devices are only useful in HDD pools, and even then they’re not a must-have.

IMO just throw in whatever is cheapest or has your desired performance. Modern SSD write endurance is way better than it used to be and even if you somehow use it all up after a decade, the money you save by buying a cheaper one will pay for the replacement.

I would also recommend using ZFS or BTRFS on the data drive, even without redundancy. These filesystems store checksums of all data so you know if anything has bitrot when you scrub it. XFS/Ext4/etc store your data but they have no idea if it’s still good or not.

I don’t know about this specific Fedora situation, but you should really be using something like Lutris or Bottles to create individual prefixes for each game and use downloadable Wine versions to launch the games instead of your system Wine. That will avoid situations like this in the future.

In this world it’s pet or be petted.

Couldn’t find it originally, updated now: https://twitter.com/kawaiiberpunk/status/1352037036560101377

I would kneel for our troops. o7

A shortlist:

• it has the best lossy image compression (not counting extremely low bitrate images, where AVIF starts to win)
• it can losslessly recompress JPEGs for a free 20% space savings - no image quality loss
• it supports parallel decoding for extra speed
• it supports progressive decoding (viewing a lower quality version of the image while it loads), unlike WebP/AVIF which just “pop up” when you’ve downloaded the whole thing
• it supports lossless
• it compresses lossless extremely well (notably unlike AVIF and PNG which fall on their face with lossless compression)
• it supports animation (though AVIF is generally a better format for animation, because it’s based on a proper video codec)
• it supports HDR
• it has a very strong resilience against generation loss (the classic “JPEG degradation” of resaving images)
• it is royalty-free
• it otherwise has roughly every image format feature we’ve ever thought of included in its spec

If JXL is not the next image format then we will never ever get rid of JPEG and PNG. There has never been a more obviously superior image format in history.

It’s possible. I think the biggest obstacle is that the corporations feeding on people’s data are not going to just stand by while it happens.

In theory upvotes are counted from every server. In practice, there’s been some small synchronization issues in the past where servers fail to send upvotes sometimes. It should be better now.