riobard

21 ms·

1. 241.▲
   Why use ECC?(danluu.com)

   5 points by riobard 8y ago|0 comments
2. 242.▲
   by riobard 8y ago

   Good point. Thanks! :)
3. 243.▲
   by riobard 8y ago

   Bit rot on cold storage is at least detectable if using filesystem with checksumming (e.g. ZFS). I’m not aware of any solutions to detect bit rot in RAM other than ECC.
4. 244.▲
   by riobard 8y ago

   To clarify, I’m more concerned about silent data corruption instead of crashing. Why does Synology not have bit rot? Becuase of ZFS? I thought ECC memory is almost required for ZFS?
5. 245.▲
   by riobard 8y ago

   I plan to ditch NAS and just connect external storage directly to the mini, and it needs to run 24/7. ECC should give me better reliability, no?
6. 246.▲
   by riobard 8y ago

   I really hope someone could figure it out if Mac mini with the i3-8100B CPU can work with ECC memory. According to Intel the CPU is ECC-capable, but I’m not sure about the mobo. If it works with ECC, it would be a truly mini Mac Pro. The hi
7. 247.▲
   by riobard 8y ago

   Because of T2 being the SSD controller, chances are those soldered SSD chips are actually raw flash, in which case even if they use M.2 slot, you won’t find any 3rd party raw flash M.2 drive (without controller) anyway.
8. 248.▲
   by riobard 8y ago

   The parent post quoted RPS is doubled on Gen9 at 1.74x power consumption resulting from doubling cores compared to Gen8. It did not say what RPS we're looking at, but from the previous post about Falkor [1] I guess it's safe to as
9. 249.▲
   by riobard 8y ago

   The white paper has detailed section explaining the kernel implementation https://www.wireguard.com/papers/wireguard.pdf
10. 250.▲
    by riobard 8y ago

    Does anyone have comparable GC latency numbers comparing Go vs Java as of 2018?
11. 251.▲
    by riobard 8y ago

    Additionally, it implies that data needs to be spread across 10,000 drives, which is unrealistic anyway.
12. 252.▲
    by riobard 8y ago

    Is there any hope that Time Machine might get reworked with APFS?
13. 253.▲
    by riobard 8y ago

    Interesting! Never heard of this before.
14. 254.▲
    by riobard 8y ago

    Yeah that sucks… I'm looking into using the incremental diff/snapshot feature of btrfs to implement a more efficient solution :P
15. 255.▲
    by riobard 8y ago

    What happens if you move/rename a bunch of big files?
16. 256.▲
    by riobard 8y ago

    Is there any detailed roadmap of Debian's transition from SysV to systemd? Currently it's a mess in Debian 9 where some packages come with traditional init scripts and some with systemd unit files, and some even with upstart scrip
17. 257.▲
    by riobard 8y ago

    Even without ECN, routers can indirectly slow down sending sides by dropping TCP packets because most TCP implementations behave politely. QUIC also adapts to packet loss, but I guess it's those other fire-and-forget-style UDP traffic
18. 258.▲
    by riobard 8y ago

    It's "unfortunate" because ISPs drop UDP packets. How else would you phrase it?
19. 259.▲
    by riobard 8y ago

    True, I do hope that mobile roaming (and switching between WiFi and mobile) would be the killer app for QUIC. But AFAIK many ISPs treat mobile network differently from home broadband. For example, my mobile plan and fiber broadband are from
20. 260.▲
    by riobard 8y ago

    I'm not proposing anything because I don't have a solution to it. If pointing out an obvious and real problem deserves a downvote, I'm not sure what's the point of this place after all.
21. 261.▲
    by riobard 8y ago

    I'm very grateful that Google puts its weight behind many of the recent improvements to the Internet, even if some would argue that it's abusing its dominant market position. What I'm worried about is that, in the QUIC case,
22. 262.▲
    by riobard 8y ago

    It's a chicken-and-egg problem. For many bad ISPs to care about this problem, QUIC adoption has to be high enough to cause mass user complaints. Yet QUIC's mass adoption requires it providing better user experience before ISPs cha
23. 263.▲
    by riobard 8y ago

    Depends on the ISP's traffic policy. I've witnessed many times when UDP packet loss is over 50% while TCP loss is below 10%.
24. 264.▲
    by riobard 8y ago

    The unfortunate fact of QUIC is that it's based on encrypted UDP packets, which many ISP routers will happily drop during peak traffic/high load periods. EDIT: oh come on down voters. This comment is stating a fact. What's yo
25. 265.▲
    by riobard 8y ago

    If it's just drawing pixels… what's the benefit of the web stack?
26. 266.▲
    by riobard 9y ago

    Yet another misuse of 1.1.1.1 in the figures. Actually, it was a mistake NOT reserving more human-friendly IP blocks for documentation/example purpose. The three /24 blocks reserved all fail blatantly because nobody remembers them
27. 267.▲
    by riobard 9y ago

    Digging deeper, I found more explanation on StackOverflow https://stackoverflow.com/a/5814636/184061 (seems to be written by tproxy author Balazs Scheidler judging by the username).
28. 268.▲
    by riobard 9y ago

    What's the problem with SO_ORIGINAL_DST? Could you please explain a bit why the code is not encouraging? The author of TPROXY also mentioned somewhere else that SO_ORIGINAL_DST is racy, but I'm not a kernel developer and don'
29. 269.▲
    by riobard 9y ago

    Search.
30. 270.▲
    by riobard 9y ago

    Is there any resolver supporting out-of-order pipelined DNS requests over a persistent TCP/TLS connection?