eupolicy.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
This Mastodon server is a friendly and respectful discussion space for people working in areas related to EU policy. When you request to create an account, please tell us something about you.

Server stats:

218
active users

#jbod

0 posts0 participants0 posts today
Asta [AMP]<p>hey hey <a href="https://fire.asta.lgbt/tags/Linux" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#Linux</a> <a href="https://fire.asta.lgbt/tags/FileSystem" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#FileSystem</a> <a href="https://fire.asta.lgbt/tags/ZFS" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#ZFS</a> <a href="https://fire.asta.lgbt/tags/RAID" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#RAID</a> <a href="https://fire.asta.lgbt/tags/XFS" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#XFS</a> entities! I'm looking for extremely opinionated discourses on alternatives to ZFS on Linux for slapping together a <a href="https://fire.asta.lgbt/tags/JBOD" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#JBOD</a><span> ("Just a Bunch Of Disks", "Just a Buncha Old Disks", "Jesus! Buncha Old Disks!", etc) array.<br><br>I like ZFS </span><i>but</i> the fact that it's not in tree in-kernel is an issue for me. What I need most is reliability and stability (specifically regarding parity) here; integrity is <i>the</i><span> need. Read/write don't have to be blazingly fast (not that I'm mad about it).<br><br>I also have one </span><a href="https://fire.asta.lgbt/tags/proxmox" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#proxmox</a> ZFS array where a raw disk image is stored for a <a href="https://fire.asta.lgbt/tags/Qemu" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#Qemu</a> <a href="https://fire.asta.lgbt/tags/VirtualMachine;" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#VirtualMachine;</a><span> in the VM, it's formatted to XFS. That "seems" fine in limited testing thus far (and seems fast?, so it does seem like the defaults got the striping correct) but I kind of hate how I have multiple levels of abstraction here.<br><br>I don't think there's been any change on the </span><a href="https://fire.asta.lgbt/tags/BTRFS" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#BTRFS</a><span> front re: raid-like array stability (I like and use BTRFS for single disk filesystems but) although I would love for that to be different.<br><br>I'm open to </span><a href="https://fire.asta.lgbt/tags/LVM" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#LVM</a><span>, etc, or whatever might help me stay in tree and up to date. Thank you! Boosts appreciated and welcome.<br><br></span><a href="https://fire.asta.lgbt/tags/techPosting" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#techPosting</a></p>
Kevin Karhan :verified:<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://infosec.exchange/@Heidi" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">@<span>Heidi</span></a></span> <em>DON'T YELL AT YOUR <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/JBOD" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>JBOD</span></a>|s THO!</em></p><p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDacjrSCeq4&amp;t=44s" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://www.</span><span class="ellipsis">youtube.com/watch?v=tDacjrSCeq</span><span class="invisible">4&amp;t=44s</span></a></p>