149 karma · joined August 8, 2019
This vdev only contains data; it's not running the OS / root.
Is this distinction as meaningful as it first seems; my assumption was that all 'laws of physics' are in essence only ever an expression of our current best understanding of these observed 'generalised patterns'?
By talking about the 'laws', it's easy to start treating these as though they are firm, a-priori rules, but my assumption was that - to physicists - these were always simply a short-cut way of describing a set of common, repeated and testable observations about the universe. Iow they were never 'rules' in the sense that they existed independent of the phenomena they were describing? I'm not a scientist, btw.
Effectively the parent is saying 'fan noise is up there with performance as my most important metric in a laptop'.
This may be true for the OP, but it's by no means a universal consideration. Personally, battery life comes before fan noise for me as a metric. YMMV.
There may be multiple, different issues with Samsung parts at play here. The 900 series issues seem to have been addressed with a f/w update; the 870 EVO issues were - allegedly - caused by bad NAND and the devices needed to be replaced.
ofc part of the problem here is the lack of public acknowledgement / information from Samsung on these issues.
Update-Manager::Never-Include-Phased-Updates;
APT::Get::Never-Include-Phased-Updates: True;...ie, ZFS is 'less resilient' in comparison to its robust disk fault handling, not that it's less resilient to memory corruption in comparison to other filesystems. The parent quotation above implies that ZFS is more sensitive to memory corruption than other fs but that is not claimed in the referenced paper.
Equally, a Crucial X8 SSD rated for the same 10GB/s connects to both Macs at its rated speed.
This behavious has persisted across OS updates since Big Sur.
My current thinking is that there's some undocumented quirks in place in MacOS that scales speeds down with certain USB controllers.
This misunderstanding tends to be caused by (1) treating the rhetorical device literally rather than as an (intentionally exaggerated) analogy, and (2) - as in this case - by assuming that the argument being made is trying to draw some moral equivalence between the analogy and the original example. It isn't.