emptiestplace

I guess that's what I get for being so terse - I actually meant it as a counterexample. Windows is a good illustration of what happens when you avoid deprecating older systems: you end up with multiple design philosophies and interfaces layered on top of each other, leading to a less cohesive user experience overall.

Conversely, Windows.

Yeah, RAIDZ1 is a reasonable trade-off for the four disks.

Move your NVMe to the other slot, I bet you can't tell a difference without synthetic benchmarks.

Ok, understood. The part I'm confused about is the focus on NVMe devices - do you also have a bunch of SATA/SAS SSDs, or even conventional disks for your media? If not, I'd definitely start there. Maybe something like six spinners in RAIDZ2, this would allow you to lose up to two drives without any data loss.

If NVMe is your only option, I'd try to find a couple used 1.92TB enterprise class drives on ebay, and go ahead and mirror those without worrying about the different performance characteristics (the pool will perform as fast as the slowest device, that's all) - but 1.92TB isn't much for a media server.

In general, I'd say consumer class SSDs aren't worth the time it'll take you to install them. I'd happily deploy almost any enterprise class SSD with 50% beat out of it over almost any brand new consumer class drive. The difference is stark - enterprise drives offer superior performance through PLP-improved latency and better sustained writes (thanks to higher quality NAND and over-provisioning), while also delivering much better longevity.

Why are you looking at 16GB Optane drives? You probably don't need a SLOG device for your media server.

I think you're pretty far into XY territory here. I'd recommend hanging out in r/homelab and r/zfs, read the FAQs, and then if you still have questions, maybe start out with a post explaining your high level goals and challenges.

A couple things:

- The ZIL is used exclusively for synchronous writes - critical for VMs, databases, NFS shares, and other applications requiring strict write consistency. Many conventional workloads won't benefit. Use `zilstat` to monitor.

- The cheap 16GB Optane devices are indeed great in terms of latency, but they were designed primarily for read caching and have significantly limited write speeds. If you need better throughput, look for the larger Optane models which don't have these limitations.

- SLOG doesn't need to be mirrored - the only risk is if your SLOG device fails at the exact moment your system crashes. While mirroring is reasonable for production systems, with these cheap 16GB Optanes you're just guaranteeing they'll wear out at the same time. You could kill one at a time instead. :)

- As for those 1TB NVMe devices for read cache (L2ARC) - that's probably overkill unless you have a very specific use case. L2ARC actually consumes RAM to track what's in the cache, and that RAM might be better used for ARC (the main memory cache). L2ARC only makes sense when you have well-understood workload patterns and your ARC is consistently under pressure - like in a busy database server or similar high-traffic scenario. Use `arcstat` to monitor your cache hit ratios before deciding if you need L2ARC.

Where?

Interesting video, but it doesn't even attempt to answer the question. Seems you are just offering Google services here.

Are you familiar with the idea of consciousness as an emergent property?

Cache or ZIL (SLOG device)?

It scrolls horizontally :(

We are talking about YouTube Premium.

You're right, but the way you're going about it isn't.

It sounds like we use LLMs similarly. I've been a bit worried I'm missing out on some of these more sophisticated tools, but I kinda figured it would go like this. Likewise, anything with 'copilot' in the name is fucking garbage.

In the future, we might not have to helicopter-parent the context window, but we definitely aren't there yet. I suspect nearly everyone who speaks poorly of LLMs simply hasn't figured this out yet.

I have created two simple scripts to help me with this workflow, `pc` and `po`. `pc` accepts a list of files and concatenates sanitized versions into the clipboard buffer, each file enclosed in triple backticks and prefixed with its filename. `po` accepts a single file, reverses sanitization and displays a diff between clipboard buffer and the specified file. It's not much, but it significant accelerates this workflow for me.

If the whole world hasn't completely left me behind by next week, I might look into adding some sort of AST-based diff/merge in `po`. It'd be nice not needing to constantly remind the LLM to output only changed files, complete, with no omissions.

BMW actually seems to be quite intentional with details like this. For those who appreciate thoughtful human-centered design, it quickly becomes clear that many of their choices reflect unusually meticulous work and attention to detail. But I wonder if this is shifting, as fewer people seem to understand the difference.

Thank you for this. It all sounds correct to me and brought back so many things I’d forgotten – but now I’m really curious how you remember these dates and numbers. My memory for details like these is pretty strong, but this level of recall is remarkable. I’m genuinely impressed.

Did you stop reading at the end of the part you quoted? Their very next words literally say this.

Me too. People should really be more careful.

How is it irresponsible?

Metadata ... I suspect steganography is being employed here as well, but will they tell us?

> Going from 8MB to 32MB in the 90s is still comparable to going from 8GB to 32GB today.

This statement makes it difficult to believe you were there.

But they are usually separate: an 8192 byte write does fit neatly get into two 4096-byte pages, and metadata writes, while also subject to write amplification, typically occur separately and can represent multiple data blocks.

Right, and if pg writes 8192 bytes every time, this is no longer relevant.

This is the MySQL approach, but it isn't without downsides - consistency, predictability, etc.

Huh? It seems you've forgotten that you were just saying that a single bit change would result in a 4096 byte write.

I agree that people should care about what it is producing on their behalf, but as long as it looks like something, it's probably gonna fly—someone actually taking the time to read it is more of a hypothetical anomaly anyway.

I suspect the real problem is much more fundamental: the vast majority of work we do is bullshit, and nobody gives a fuck about any of it.

Other than a couple changes to the drug line-up, I feel like I could've written this. Surprisingly comforting. Do you ever struggle with the narcissism inherent in pondering how the world might be different if everyone experienced similarly serendipitous alignment of circumstance and constitution?

Are you against using containers?

Naively asking it for code for anything remotely complex is foolish, but if you do know what you're doing and understand how to manage context, it's a ridiculously potent force multiplier. I rarely ask it for anything without specifying which libraries I want to use, and if I'm not sure which library I want, I'll ask it about options and review before proceeding.

"I think", but worse.