Eskating cyclist, gamer and enjoyer of anime. Probably an artist. Also I code sometimes, pretty much just to mod titanfall 2 tho.
Introverted, yet I enjoy discussion to a fault.
How did you install kopia? What system are you on?
I'm not yet sure about that
It needs to be running, if it is, it will follow the policy. Systemd can start it with the system, but you can also start it some other way. Or you can execute snapshots without it constantly running, via cron/script. It's up to you.
Abrubt power off shouldn't damage the drives, but it can absolutely corrupt files that are being written, and even entirely delete things in the write cache.
Depends. If you are running it as a service that starts with the system (
sudo sysemctl enable kopiashould work with most install methods, as kopia comes with a systemd service you only need to enable) then yes, it will use its own scheduler.If you want to use your own scheduling, you'd use anything that can execute a command on a schedule.
The main advantages of Kopia, are speed and destination flexibility.
The off-site storage does not need to have Kopia installed. It can be a mounted network location, an FTP server. Whatever. A generic cloud storage bucket like Backblaze B2.
That's why just a router with and external drive hooked up is able to suffice.
For all of these, you can connect multiple Kopia instances to that same destination, and each client can browse backups, restore from them, and backup their own files to the destination. It even performs file deduplication across different source device. All while that destination device or service, has no access to your encrypted files.
With borg, you need something like a Pi that can have borg installed. (You can also do this with Kopia, in which case the Kopia instance on the destination device is also able to manage the backups).
Kopia also beats borg and restic in speed. My daily backups typically complete within a minute or two. I used to use Duplicati, with which it was common for it to take up to an hour. When it started regularly taking more than an hour, I switched to Kopia.
Kopia is not the fastest for initial backup. The speed of this varies depending on destination type. It does not compress by default, but you can enable almost any type of compression you want. No, what it is fastest at is updating backups. If there is nothing to update, it does not take forever for it to figure that out. Kopia does it in seconds.
If this actually worked, the rich wouldn't be trying to sell AI to the poor. They'd keep it to themselves.
Neat! That was a dealbreaker back when I last tried it.
I use Jellyfin with the Symfonium mobile client.
Navidrome is popular but does not support multi-tags for some fields, like artists.
- There is no "special" benefit to a pre-built NAS. They have convenient software but there is nothing exceptional about them. They're just computers with storage drive slots. Using a bunch of external drives via a USB hub would be fine. But is that your only expansion option on the system you have? Access speeds via USB, especially if using a hub, won't be ideal. It'll certainly work, though. You can also get enclosures to put full size HDDs in, which can connect to an existing system.
- RAID is still the way to go, but since you don't need much storage, I'd start with RAID 1, not 5. 5 will require a rebuild with a new drive if something goes wrong, while RAID 1 will work with 2 drives and give you complete mirroring. Since you intend to have a "local" backup copy anyway, why not just skip that and use RAID 1? It's literally the same thing, except it'll actually provide uptime in case of failure, unlike a backup drive or raid 5.
- So RAID 5 plus a local backup, plus another offsite? This is overkill IMO. (Not the offsite backup that's good. But raid+local copy. Just use two drives and mirror them using whatever you prefer.) In your place, I think I'd go with BTRFS in raid1c2 mode. This is like raid1, in that with two drives, you only get the capacity of one drive. But, the "c2" means that each data block is mirrored to two drives. With more than two drives, you can expand storage. (With three 2TB drives you'd get 3TB) You don't get as much available storage as with raid5, but you get expandability, which you normally don't with raid1. And you get uptime in case of failure without an array rebuild (though for this you must mount the volume with the "degraded" option, unlike actual raid using mdadm). You also get filesystem snapshots.
- You intend to do this manually? That is fine. My current solution is a second NAS at my dad's home, to which my system is backed up daily using Kopia. Kopia deduplicates and compresses the backups, efficiently keeping versions up to two years back. The simplest version of this would be a router that can host an FTP server using an external drive in its usb port. This way you could automate off-site backup and have it happen more frequently. Asus routers can do this, and even come with free dynamic DNS and automatic https with letsenrypt. You literally just plug it into WAN somewhere, and you'll be able to back up to it over the internet.
Finally, just some mentions.
MDADM, is what you'd use to create a software RAID array.
BTRFS has built-in multi-device storage, of which only single, raid0, and raid1 are stable. Do not use the raid5 and 6 modes. While named raid, the modes differ from actual raid. BTRFS is able to convert from one mode to another, and can add drives in any mode (though will need to "balance" the drives after changes, to make additional capacity available). It is also able to evict drives. It will not auto-mount a volume after drive failure, and requires the "degraded" option be added.
Mergerfs can be used to merge filesystems to expand storage non-destructively. It is able to arbitrarily combine volumes of any type, to combine their capacity. This way, it can for example be used to expand a raid1 array by combining it with a single disk, or another raid1 array, or whatever else. This can be done temporarily, as the combined volume can also be disassembled non-destructively, with each file simply remaining on whatever drive they were on.
Welcome to premium khajit wares.
You have coin, yes?
That's rare.
Being predators cats have a hunger drive that kicks in early to make them look for food before they're too weak to hunt. In nature, cats are usually always a little hungry. Hence, if the food is palatable, most cats will eat constantly and end up eating more than they need by at least some margin.
It's not an active decision by the animal, but rather the hunger drive, which can vary quite a lot between individuals.
This is complicated by the fact that cats are picky, to the point they can outright refuse to eat something they aren't used to, or just eat less of it.
My cat would never stop eating his favorite treat (freeze dried meats), the same cat eats a little too much kibble if I let him, and no wet food at all no matter how hungry he is. This kind of thing, you might argue is a decision.
Well yeah.
The post is about kittens.
I'm talking about pets in general, and how they don't decide stuff like this.
A downvote doesn't suggest anything at all.
This comment does.
That's... Not what I'm saying. What the fuck?
The kitten doesn't need to stay fat. That's all.
If a pet is getting its food from you, it's on you to give it the right amount.
The same applies to asking a vet for advice, if you don't know.
Bottom line: The health of a pet (or any animal in human care) is the responsibility of the respective human.
My second comment initially made ABSOLUTELY NO STATEMENT beyond that fact, or what it means in practice.
Ok.
Doesn't change that the health of an animal kept as a pet, is the responsibility of the respective human.
Edit: are you downvoters assuming I'm suggesting you separate the kitten and mother? I'm not.
Kittens and mother cats should go essentially untouched by humans for several weeks after birth.
After that, just don't continue to allow the kitten to overeat and it'll be fine.
Pets don't decide to be fat.
Pet owners decide to overfeed them.
Odds?
Just look it up, or tell me what you have.
Regardless of what you have, the "odds" are good.
If you have something unusual that causes problems, that's too bad, but it doesn't stop the rest of us from having a good time. And now that I'm on linux, I can make sure something will work before I buy it, and if it doesn't, I can return it.
It's only at the time of when you switch you need to think about whether your existing hardware will work.
Linux does. Not all, but a lot, and more every day.
It's been years now, and it still hits me sometimes how insanely nice it is that my computers now work the way I want them to.
I edited my comment.
But if a couple gigs of storage will do, there is this: https://nextcloud.com/sign-up/
You have to host it yourself, pay for it to be hosted for you, or know and trust someone with an instance who is willing to give you an account.
Nextcloud is like Lemmy. Nextcloud is just the software, to use it you need a service provider that'll give you an actual instance to sign up on. That provider can be anyone, including yourself.
Nextcloud makes free personal accounts available via a couple partners, here: https://nextcloud.com/sign-up/
Same but among arch users it's "your config" and "my config".