Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)S

stuner

@ stuner @lemmy.world

Posts
1
Comments
45
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Looking for recommendations for a multi home NAS solution

    Jump

  • Read (only) access should be fine. What makes it complicated is if there can be writes from multiple locations. Basically, the simple version would be to just periodically copy the data from the primary to all secondary locations.

  • Looking for recommendations for a multi home NAS solution

    Jump

  • I can see why you'd want to go with an off-the-shelf NAS. But, I would carefully check if it supports your use case, as it's quite advanced.

  • Looking for recommendations for a multi home NAS solution

    Jump

  • If the data only needs to be read & written from a single server (and the others are just backups), you can also use simpler replication instead of synchthing. E.g. syncoid or TrueNAS replication. It sounds like you should be able to do that with separate datasets per household in your usecase.

  • Looking for recommendations for a multi home NAS solution

    Jump

  • I would probably go with a simple approach like this:

    • ZFS: Each house gets a "NAS" that provides a ZFS filesystem to store the data. This gives you the ability to share the drives across your use cases (you, rest of the family), snapshots, RAIDZ support, and usage quotas. For the OS, you could use what you prefer (TrueNAS, Debian, Ubuntu, ...).
    • Syncthing to synchronize the files across the servers/houses. This allows you to read and write data from anywhere and syncthing will mirror the writes to the other places. I use it to synchronize data across 5 devices and it works quite well.

    There are probably more advanced (enterprise?) ways to handle the file synchronization. But, I think this hould be good enough for normal, personal use. The main disadvantage is that you're only synchronizing the current data (excluding the ZFS snapshots). On the other hand, this also allows you to mix file systems if necessary.

  • GNOME Moves On: What the End of the X11 Session Means

    Jump

  • Gnome and KDE are not doing the same thing.

    KDE will continue to offer an X11 session for the time being:

    Current status: Plasma’s X11 session continues to be maintained.

    https://pointieststick.com/2025/06/21/about-plasmas-x11-session/

    Gnome will disable the X11 session in the next release and then remove the code:

    The most likely scenario is that all the X11 session code stays disabled by default for 49 with a planned removal for GNOME 50.

    https://blogs.gnome.org/alatiera/2025/06/08/the-x11-session-removal/

  • How to move OwnCloud data? (Solved)

    Jump

  • I'm not quite sure what you're trying to do here. Are you

    1. Trying to create a new owncloud instance and put your data somewhere other than in /var, or
    2. Try to move the data location of an existing owncloud instance?

    If you're trying to do the second one, there's a useful guide on it here: https://omiid.me/notebook/25/move-docker-volume-to-bind-mount. The first one should be even simpler, you can just replace the volumes in the compose file by bind mounts (basically, just this step of the tutorial: https://omiid.me/notebook/25/move-docker-volume-to-bind-mount#modifying-docker-compose).

  • Prioritizing de-clouding efforts

    Jump
  • Removed

    [Question] Does USB4 increase the number of available endpoints?

    Jump

  • This seems to be a limitation of Intel host controllers. The USB 2.0 specification (including 12 Mbps Full Speed) allows for up to 127 devices. Each of those devices can have up to 16 IN and 16 OUT endpoints, c.f. https://www.usbmadesimple.co.uk/ums_3.htm Depending on how you count, that would be a maximum of 2k to 4k endpoints in total. I guess Intel thought it wasn't worthwhile supporting that many endpoints.

    Some quick searching turned up this post that claims that USB3 controllers often support up to 254 endpoints (in total). https://www.cambrionix.com/a-quick-guide-to-usb-endpoint-limitations/ Other posters have also said that AMD appears to have higher limits. You could also consider adding more USB root hubs to your system (with PCIe cards).

  • Intel Foundry Fails To Impress Once Again, 18A Process "Yield Rates' Are Reported To Be Only 10% Making Mass-Production Impossible

    Jump

  • Yield is the percentage of chips that are functional. Roughly, you can think of it as the probability of a chip having 0 defects. The bigger the chip, or the higher the defect density, the lower this probability becomes. Chip designers will also include mitigation techniques (e.g. redundancy) to allow chips to work even with some defects.

  • Intel Foundry Fails To Impress Once Again, 18A Process "Yield Rates' Are Reported To Be Only 10% Making Mass-Production Impossible

    Jump

  • Talking about the "yield" of a process doesn't make any sense. Yield is a metric for a specific chip fabricated on a given process. This depends heavily on the size of the chip and mitigation techniques.

    The "correct" metric to compare processes is defect density (in defects per square cm). Intel claims that their defect density is below 0.4 defects/cm²: https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/intel-says-defect-density-at-18a-is-healthy-potential-clients-are-lining-up. This would be relatively high but not much worse than what TSMC has seen for their recent nodes: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/intel-18a-process-node-clocks-an-abysmal-10-yield-report.329513/page-2#post-5387835).

  • Tell me why I shouldn't use btrfs

    Jump

  • Unfotunately, I can help you with that. The machine is not running any VMs.

  • Tell me why I shouldn't use btrfs

    Jump

  • It's possible, but you should be able to see it quite easily. In my case, the CPU utilization was very low, so the same test should also not be CPU-bottlenecked on your system.

  • Tell me why I shouldn't use btrfs

    Jump

  • I'm seeing very similar speeds on my two-HDD RAID1. The computer has an AMD 8500G CPU but the load from ZFS is minimal. Reading / writing a 50GB /dev/urandom file (larger than the cache) gives me:

    • 169 MB/s write
    • 254 MB/s read

    What's your setup?

  • Tell me why I shouldn't use btrfs

    Jump

  • With version 2.3 (currently in RC), ZFS will at least support RAIDZ expansion. That should already help a lot for a NAS usecase.

  • good replacement options power efficiency and affordable "large" storage?

    Jump

  • That system also sounds a lot more capable than mine. How did you end up with 25 VMs?

  • good replacement options power efficiency and affordable "large" storage?

    Jump

  • I'm running it in a regular mATX case (Node 804) but I think you can also get AM5 motherboards in rack-mount cases.

  • good replacement options power efficiency and affordable "large" storage?

    Jump

  • Perhaps my recent NAS/home server build can serve as a bit of an inspiration for you:

    • AMD Ryzen 8500G (8 cores, much more powerful than your two CPUs, with iGPU)
    • Standard B650 mainboard, 32 GB RAM
    • 2 x used 10 TB HDDs in a ZFS pool (mainboard has 4x SATA ports)
    • Debian Bookworm with Docker containers for applications (containers should be more efficient than VMs).
    • Average power consumption of 19W. Usually cooled passively.

    I don't think it's more efficient to separate processing and storage so I'd only go for that if you want to play around with a cluster. I would also avoid SD cards as a root FS, as they tend to die early and catastrophically.

  • Is Mac Mini suitable for self-hosted server?

    Jump

  • It's an Apple Silicon Mac Mini. Do you have a particular reason to think the new one is less efficient?

  • Is Mac Mini suitable for self-hosted server?

    Jump

  • I do think it can achieve that while waiting for network packets (see e.g. https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-tested).

    But in terms of money savings it would rarely make sense, as you need to make it back during the time you run the system. If we assume 6 years lifetime then it would only make sense to pay $120 more. But yes, I'd also go for a system that runs regular Linux :)