The question is how do you get a bad performance with ZFS?
I just tried to read a large file and it gave me uncached 280 MB/s from two mirrored HDDs.
The fourth run (obviously cached) gave me over 3.8 GB/s.
The question is how do you get a bad performance with ZFS?
I just tried to read a large file and it gave me uncached 280 MB/s from two mirrored HDDs.
The fourth run (obviously cached) gave me over 3.8 GB/s.
It's a well-known problem in the upper management that they only understand Excel.
I've seen inventories, statistical calculations, databases, project plans, calendars, address books, password management and even presentation slides done in Excel.
But Germany has no space for nuclear waste. They haven't been able to bury the last batch for over 30 years. And the one that they buried most recently began to leak radioactivity into ground water.
And.. why give Russia more military target opportunities?
There is nothing to refurbish in drives. They are just second hand devices. You can check if they are fine pretty easy and you need to take a look at the age (power on hours). I replace drives at 50k-60k hours, no matter if they are fine.
Mine doesn't satisfy them, either. I switched off TPM in BIOS.
I'm pretty much since the beginning on Matrix. I have never experienced any questionable content. Large chats (thousands of users) have some spam problems, but the spammers banned quickly and the posts are being removed.
What am I doing right?
I laughed a bit. Thanks.
If you break trains programmatically (by software) you're an industrial saboteur.
That's much worse than to hack them to work again.
There is discoveribility, but no one uses it. It's called Web of Trust (by PGP).
Most of these observations are subjective. I've had some Seagate drives that worked well but were very hot and wasted energy. On the other hand WD was crap so far, starting with 3 TB. Not because of quality, but because of power saving features that were a major annoyance to me (green and some blue drives). Red drives I had were mostly fine, even they wore out pretty quickly (Load_Cycle_Count bugs). They ran at 0% health left for a few years and had other awful SMART and on-drive controller bugs.
Since Seagate and WD are essentially the same company and they lied about SMR before, I wouldn't buy either of them.
This is an old PC (Intel i7 3770K) with 2 HDDs (16 TB) attached to onboard SATA3 controller, 16 GB RAM and 1 SSD (120 GB). Nothing special. And it's quite busy because it's my home server with a VM and containers.