That's why I said "RAID6(3 disk)". I have a cousin that has been a guest speaker for several national talks about how to properly setup your storage, and he managed a 10PiB logical datastore for nearly a decade using RAID6(RAIDZ3) and never had to go to backup. Your servers should be setup in a way that a single controller does not take down the array. Even better is you can setup a master-master/slave shared SAS plane, so if one file-server dies, the slave picks up. Yes, you can allow multiple computers to directly share the same physical harddrives, FreeBSD supports that. It's file system agnostic and works transparently.
Please explain your non-RAID disk-based backup solution? Don't even mention tape, that's irrelevant to this discussion, it's just another medium. You can store your data on punch-cards for all I care.
I use my visual center while programming, but most of what I call programming is thinking about the problem. When I'm coding, I'm not sure what I'm using. I cannot walk and discuss difficult problems because I will lose track of what is around me, sometimes even lose my balance as I model the problem visually in my head.
At least one time when I was going for a walk with my co-worker, we were discussing something very interesting to me and I nearly fell over because my visual orientation while shuffling stuff around in my head did not play well with my orientation in the real world. I had to suddenly stop walking and purposely focus on something in front of me to quickly regain my balance.
Another time I was sitting at my desk when I had a sudden moment of brilliance when working on designing a difficult system for nearly two weeks. When that happen, I had a huge rush of ideas that suddenly fell into place, causing my visual model to quickly take shape, during which time I noticed my actual vision started to tunnel, and I could not see anything outside of the center of my vision, and then I started to see sparkles. As soon as the moment was over, my vision returned to normal. I was mentally drained for the rest of the day.
Passion is probably the single best indicator. It doesn't mean the person works all the time, just that they're interested. I am very passionate about programming, but I have never done any programming outside of work or school.
RAID isn't backup, but your backup devices may be using RAID, and increasing the MTBF of your backup device is a worthy cause. The main benefit of RAID10 is IOPS. I would argue that using any FS that doesn't have checksumming is useless. If you don't know your data is good, what point is there?
The main point is a small difference in investment gives a huge difference in benefit.
RAID5 increases the chance of needing to go to backup. What if your backup device is also using RAID5? Now you've increased your chance of going to a secondary backup. The difference between RAID5 and RAID6(3 disk) can be the difference between rarely going to backup and never going to backup in your lifetime.
They recently said that pointer-rewrite, which is required for re-balancing, will not happen. They have looked at the issue for a few years now and cannot figure out a safe way to make it work that wouldn't open up a window for dataloss. The only way to rebalance or shrink is to make a new pool on another set of drives, and import the existing pool.
Nearly all of the original Sun devs that created ZFS in the first place, still work on OpenZFS full time and are paid to do so. OpenZFS is very actively developed. They have 2 or more presentations per year about all of the changes they're constantly making and some of the upcoming big changes. Currently they are focusing on standardizing ZFS between FreeBSD, Luminos, and Linux. It's a large refactoring effort to have all ZFS's code bases to live in the same tree. One OpenZFS code tree for all OSes. Everyone will be in sync.
While you can't shrink ZFS pools because they cannot do that atomically, and they refuse to do anything that allows the end user to shoot themselves in the foot, like leaving the FS in an inconsistent state, you can create a new pool that is smaller and import your larger pool into the smaller one, as long as it fits. Can't do it in-place, but you can do it. It just sucks to do that with a 1PiB+ pool. But who shrinks those?
As much as I love ZFS over BTRFS, monoculture is bad. If anything, BTRFS is a learning experience for the entire community, but I do think ZFS needs first class support.
BTRFS is the SystemD of filesystems. Lots of features, poor design. Features can be great, but they come at a cost. To summarize the issues with BTRFS, is it violates the principle of least surprise, which can result in some completely unexpected gotchas. The other thing is it is not truly transactional/atomic. By design, it requires fsck, which means the filesystem can be left in an inconsistent state. This opens the doors for a host of issues that ZFS is guaranteed to never have.
Not to mention, there are still plenty of people complaining about it eating their data.
Only in theory. In practice, hypervisors have had more security issues, not to mention performance issues. Jails are faster and more secure if you look at their track record. Some of the most reknown kernel programmers who have been working on kernels before Unix had a name, and have worked in both hypervisors and jails, have said that hypervisors are a complicated mess for both software and hardware and securing them is a huge issue. Jails are much simpler and with anything security, simpler is better.
The prizes go to groups that solve or answer questions that are very hard to answer, not just because iterative technology has allowed them to create better materials.
Sarah called Linus out many years back and Linus responded saying that her code quality is not up to par and then he proceeded to scold the dev that allowed he code into the kernel in the first place. I wouldn't say she is "talented", but she may be "good". One of the issues with kernel programming is good doesn't cut it, you want as near perfect as possible.
Funny thing about programming, 80% of programmers are below average because the above average skew everything so much. 20% of the people do 50% of the work. Do this twice and 4% of the people do 25% of the work. You can afford to keep out other programmers.
Good programmers spend more time thinking than programming. Yes, they have a lot of time to judge. Not to mention that judging is a lot easier than coming up with a correct answer.
Adding one extra person to a one person team could have super linear speed improvements. Many times, very small groups can gain more efficiency than overhead in addition to increased throughput. I've seen similar things with some multi-threaded programs that I've written, where I saw an overall increase of cache hits when running two threads because the datasets were small.
In my personal case at work, I do a lot of creative work when designing systems, and that requires a decent amount of mental down time. My cube mate has a similar issue. It works out well that when one of us is stumped on something, we ask the other for their opinion which gains us both two things. First is an outside opinion, second is the other person gets some needed downtime to step away from their own problems.
You may not like it, but skilled people are rarely people persons. Want to be PC, then don't expect a whole lot of talent. Can't have your cake and eat it to. Most smart people cannot stand irrational people. And when you try to become a peer in a group of elite, you will be judged for every mistake, harshly. They don't have time to waste. Keep up or get out of the way.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why I said "RAID6(3 disk)". I have a cousin that has been a guest speaker for several national talks about how to properly setup your storage, and he managed a 10PiB logical datastore for nearly a decade using RAID6(RAIDZ3) and never had to go to backup. Your servers should be setup in a way that a single controller does not take down the array. Even better is you can setup a master-master/slave shared SAS plane, so if one file-server dies, the slave picks up. Yes, you can allow multiple computers to directly share the same physical harddrives, FreeBSD supports that. It's file system agnostic and works transparently.
Please explain your non-RAID disk-based backup solution? Don't even mention tape, that's irrelevant to this discussion, it's just another medium. You can store your data on punch-cards for all I care.
Human != person
Person == sentient intelligence
I use my visual center while programming, but most of what I call programming is thinking about the problem. When I'm coding, I'm not sure what I'm using. I cannot walk and discuss difficult problems because I will lose track of what is around me, sometimes even lose my balance as I model the problem visually in my head.
At least one time when I was going for a walk with my co-worker, we were discussing something very interesting to me and I nearly fell over because my visual orientation while shuffling stuff around in my head did not play well with my orientation in the real world. I had to suddenly stop walking and purposely focus on something in front of me to quickly regain my balance.
Another time I was sitting at my desk when I had a sudden moment of brilliance when working on designing a difficult system for nearly two weeks. When that happen, I had a huge rush of ideas that suddenly fell into place, causing my visual model to quickly take shape, during which time I noticed my actual vision started to tunnel, and I could not see anything outside of the center of my vision, and then I started to see sparkles. As soon as the moment was over, my vision returned to normal. I was mentally drained for the rest of the day.
Passion is probably the single best indicator. It doesn't mean the person works all the time, just that they're interested. I am very passionate about programming, but I have never done any programming outside of work or school.
RAID isn't backup, but your backup devices may be using RAID, and increasing the MTBF of your backup device is a worthy cause. The main benefit of RAID10 is IOPS. I would argue that using any FS that doesn't have checksumming is useless. If you don't know your data is good, what point is there?
The main point is a small difference in investment gives a huge difference in benefit.
RAID5 increases the chance of needing to go to backup. What if your backup device is also using RAID5? Now you've increased your chance of going to a secondary backup. The difference between RAID5 and RAID6(3 disk) can be the difference between rarely going to backup and never going to backup in your lifetime.
They recently said that pointer-rewrite, which is required for re-balancing, will not happen. They have looked at the issue for a few years now and cannot figure out a safe way to make it work that wouldn't open up a window for dataloss. The only way to rebalance or shrink is to make a new pool on another set of drives, and import the existing pool.
Yes, you can add drives to the pool. Except in mirrored vdevs, you can't change the number of drives, but you can add more vdevs to the pool.
Don't use RAID5. When one drive dies, there is a very good chance another drive will die, even if the that drive is a different model or brand.
Nearly all of the original Sun devs that created ZFS in the first place, still work on OpenZFS full time and are paid to do so. OpenZFS is very actively developed. They have 2 or more presentations per year about all of the changes they're constantly making and some of the upcoming big changes. Currently they are focusing on standardizing ZFS between FreeBSD, Luminos, and Linux. It's a large refactoring effort to have all ZFS's code bases to live in the same tree. One OpenZFS code tree for all OSes. Everyone will be in sync.
While you can't shrink ZFS pools because they cannot do that atomically, and they refuse to do anything that allows the end user to shoot themselves in the foot, like leaving the FS in an inconsistent state, you can create a new pool that is smaller and import your larger pool into the smaller one, as long as it fits. Can't do it in-place, but you can do it. It just sucks to do that with a 1PiB+ pool. But who shrinks those?
As much as I love ZFS over BTRFS, monoculture is bad. If anything, BTRFS is a learning experience for the entire community, but I do think ZFS needs first class support.
BTRFS is the SystemD of filesystems. Lots of features, poor design. Features can be great, but they come at a cost. To summarize the issues with BTRFS, is it violates the principle of least surprise, which can result in some completely unexpected gotchas. The other thing is it is not truly transactional/atomic. By design, it requires fsck, which means the filesystem can be left in an inconsistent state. This opens the doors for a host of issues that ZFS is guaranteed to never have.
Not to mention, there are still plenty of people complaining about it eating their data.
It makes other FSs look like FAT32.
This is also my thought.
BSD is a kernel and userland. If you want to normalize Linux and BSD, then each Linux distro is a fork.
Only in theory. In practice, hypervisors have had more security issues, not to mention performance issues. Jails are faster and more secure if you look at their track record. Some of the most reknown kernel programmers who have been working on kernels before Unix had a name, and have worked in both hypervisors and jails, have said that hypervisors are a complicated mess for both software and hardware and securing them is a huge issue. Jails are much simpler and with anything security, simpler is better.
The prizes go to groups that solve or answer questions that are very hard to answer, not just because iterative technology has allowed them to create better materials.
2016, the great talent exodus. Bit-rot takes over and everything goes to crap by year 8, Linux is no more.
Sarah called Linus out many years back and Linus responded saying that her code quality is not up to par and then he proceeded to scold the dev that allowed he code into the kernel in the first place. I wouldn't say she is "talented", but she may be "good". One of the issues with kernel programming is good doesn't cut it, you want as near perfect as possible.
Funny thing about programming, 80% of programmers are below average because the above average skew everything so much. 20% of the people do 50% of the work. Do this twice and 4% of the people do 25% of the work. You can afford to keep out other programmers.
Good programmers spend more time thinking than programming. Yes, they have a lot of time to judge. Not to mention that judging is a lot easier than coming up with a correct answer.
Adding one extra person to a one person team could have super linear speed improvements. Many times, very small groups can gain more efficiency than overhead in addition to increased throughput. I've seen similar things with some multi-threaded programs that I've written, where I saw an overall increase of cache hits when running two threads because the datasets were small.
In my personal case at work, I do a lot of creative work when designing systems, and that requires a decent amount of mental down time. My cube mate has a similar issue. It works out well that when one of us is stumped on something, we ask the other for their opinion which gains us both two things. First is an outside opinion, second is the other person gets some needed downtime to step away from their own problems.
You may not like it, but skilled people are rarely people persons. Want to be PC, then don't expect a whole lot of talent. Can't have your cake and eat it to. Most smart people cannot stand irrational people. And when you try to become a peer in a group of elite, you will be judged for every mistake, harshly. They don't have time to waste. Keep up or get out of the way.
I used a #2 pencil to hack my Athlon CPU to unlock it for better overclocking.
I hear he's nice in person, but if you're trying to sabotage his baby, he'll tear your head off.