Quoting Hendrik Boom (hend...@topoi.pooq.com): [RAID1:]
> It's not backup in any normally robust sense of the word. It does > provide a bit of backup against one potential threat -- minor > localized hard drive failures. Which is properly called rendundancy, in contrast to backup. (You might continue to choose to differ, in which case we agree to disagree, please.) > That's why I also keep separate off-line backups. Which is properly called backup. ;-> > TRIM because SSDs? That's what TRIM (capitalised not as an acronym but rather because it's a style convention for the names of ATA commands) applies to. Your question lacks context and clarity as stated, so I don't know whether you're saying you are fundamentally unfamiliar with the issue. You might be saying that. If you are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trim_(computing) https://wiki.debian.org/SSDOptimization https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Solid_State_Drives https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/ata/libata-core.c#n4519 Also covers block alignment and other issues raised by SSD. > I like the checksum protection of ZFS and btrfs. If I could get it > with ext4 I'd be happy. Don't hold you breath waiting. ;-> > I'll have about half a gig of RAM. Does this rule out ZFS or just > make it moderately slower? I'm not going to be running millions of > transactions a day on my home server. I'm pretty sure it totally rules out ZFS. The usual RAM suggestions start at 8GB, and go upwards from there. It's possible to have a crawling^W running system with less (like, as low as 1GB), but you wouldn't like it. [btrfs:] > Scarily beta, yes. I'd consider it if it ever stops being scarily > beta. Don't hold you breath waiting. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
