tscs37

44 ms·

421.
by tscs37 9y ago
How is their catchall support? Last I checked into the status, they only planned to support it for business accounts and limited sending to only a few aliases.
422.
by tscs37 9y ago
You might still loose partial datasets (especially when the database is not 100% perfectly constrained) and not all software handles such sudden halts perfectly. Making a snapshot of any working dataset of any software without the data corr
423.
by tscs37 9y ago
I'm not aware of ZFS letting you access corrupted files that easily, the Oracle manual [1] notes that files can only be recovered from backup or removed, not how to access a file that has been corrupted. So this does seem to imply that
424.
by tscs37 9y ago
That is fairly obvious, a lot of systems provide snapshot functionality irrelevant of the file system. If you still need snapshots, there are several methods without needing CoW Filesystems, notably LVM and dattobd (both of which I have u
425.
by tscs37 9y ago
Checksumming is rather not free on today's CPUs unless you use something like xxhash which operates close to RAM speed. Journaling is rather useful because especially consumer desktop computers tend to be mistreated and crash a lot. Th
426.
by tscs37 9y ago
Not everyone needs copy on write and checksumming, it doesn't make sense to waste CPU cycles on checksums when the use case doesn't require it. ext4 is a perfectly fine filesystem for most desktop users and a wide range of servers
427.
by tscs37 9y ago
Personally I think its sufficient to have a low contrast mode on your website. In general I think its never a bad idea to reduce strain on the eyes of a user, reducing excessive contrast is one way to do it I'm not a professional web d
428.
by tscs37 9y ago
I've found 192.0.2.0 rather useful. It's designated as a test IP range and shouldn't route anywhere useful in normal local networks.
429.
by tscs37 9y ago
Well the breakdown of a share has differing effects depending on the consensus rules, same for the entire network. I can't answer that unless you specify which consensus we are talking about.
430.
by tscs37 9y ago
Because in the sharded example, only the shard suffers a break down, not the entire network, if the nodes collude. It also allows people to run smaller nodes on cheap hardware, this increasing the potential number of nodes in the network.
431.
by tscs37 9y ago
Because Sharding also lessens the load on each individual node. A single node does not need to process everything
432.
by tscs37 9y ago
Sharding intents to solve this by splitting the billion messages into a 1000 (or more) smaller problem space. Thusly only requiring 1 VM per node. (tho you need more nodes for equivalent security)
433.
by tscs37 9y ago
IIRC Gitlab has some issue on implementing federated Pull Requests, which would allow users to run their own Gitlab instances but still interact with Gitlab-proper repositories as normal.
434.
by tscs37 9y ago
Badly written software will break. Or software relying on badly written DNS resolvers.
435.
by tscs37 9y ago
The MCE bug might explain some behaviour on my system, however, I could just as easily also blame frequent brownouts. On the other hand, the compile thingy has never been an issue yet, despite me compiling a lot of things. (Ryzen 7) And for
436.
by tscs37 9y ago
I'm still quite certain that some test suite had a faulty PHP benchmark that segfaulted on both vendors and people claimed it was Ryzen only. Oh well. Either way, IMO it's not a roadblock for office and gaming usage.
437.
by tscs37 9y ago
AFAIK it's currently being blamed on a bug in the PHP testsuite that segfsults in Intel too.
438.
by tscs37 9y ago
I do hope that these methods get patched, I tend to archive my bookmark collection with chrome headless to prevent loosing content when such a site goes offline. I hate it when a website requires me to play special snowflake to scrape them
439.
by tscs37 9y ago
personally, I would say yes. I've been happily using my 1700x on my personal machine for months without much issue (except when as noted above, the issue was induced with very very high CPU load, manually and in a controlled manner). U
440.
by tscs37 9y ago
The thing is, glyphosate/roundup is still a toxin. It may be safe in low doses but I wouldn't exactly try to drink large quantities of something that is made for the only purpose to kill some animal/plant.
441.
by tscs37 9y ago
The point of a device key is that you can revoke such a key in the event it gets lost and not have people accidentally use it to send you secrets (assuming they use keybase online / are up to date )
442.
by tscs37 9y ago
Remote storage is on B2, several Terabytes, it's not very expensive, restoring however is.
443.
by tscs37 9y ago
Such a solution is extremely expensive and inefficient for a home setup.
444.
by tscs37 9y ago
Recovering from my current backup solution is expensive, the additional cost is not worth it. Remaking the entire pool is also a hassle and incurs unnecessary downtime. Additionally, not all data is backed up, which I will loose, as this is
445.
by tscs37 9y ago
The comparison is a bit off. If you build a RAIDZ2 wiht a 3x8TB and a 3x8TB pool, you loose 2+2x8TB = 32TB and have only 16TB usuable. 6x2+6x6 is a mixed pool so it's hard to compare to actual disks. An alternative, better, comparison,
446.
by tscs37 9y ago
The danger of loosing data on a RAID10 resilver is much higher than people expect. A 6x8TB RAID10 has a 47.3% chance of encountering a URE during a rebuild, which means data loss. A 6x8TB RAID6 has a 0.0002% chance of a URE. (Assuming URE r
447.
by tscs37 9y ago
SnapRAID and BTRFS both support adding disks. On BTRFS you simply use the new space or rebalance the pool to use the new disk properly. On SnapRAID the next scan will add the disk to the parity drive contents. For low-cost home usage, it is
448.
by tscs37 9y ago
It's also important to keep in mind that a stripe of mirrors, aka RAID10, has a higher failure probability compared to RAIDZ2 or higher on most common disk setups by several orders of magnitude.
449.
by tscs37 9y ago
That's not the problem here. The problem is having a 6x3TB pool and turning it into a 7x3TB pool, which is arguably much much cheaper than buying 6x4TB.
450.
by tscs37 9y ago
My bank goes a step farther and requires me to physically show up in their branch office and verify my ID. It has to be the branch near my residence. It's not a bother since it's a 5 minute walk but I imagine that it would be hard

More ›