Threatening a dog with a weiner I see. That's a bold strategy.
avidamoeba
joined 1 year ago
I don't understand how this follows from what I said. 🤔 I called for increasing redundancy to compensate for the increased risk of failure. That's the purpose of redundancy. Reducing the time spent dealing with troubles. Unless you consider replacing a disk to be a significant time spent. To me it isn't because it's fairly trivial in my setup. Perhaps it's more work in other setups.
Depending on the prices, you may even be able to add significantly more redundancy by using recertified disks, potentially reducing the risk even more than running new drives. E.g. 4-disk redundancy vs 2-disk for the same price. Running a significantly more redundant setup not only decreases the probability of an array failure but it should also reduce the mechanical load each disk experiences over time which should further decrease failure risk.
A WD? I also like living dangerously.gif 😊
I kid of course. It could be absolutely appropriate depending on the data and budget.
I think it also depends on the host. I'm running some power-disable disks in my boxes and they didn't require adapters or tape.
My second machine uses such disks. They work fine. They're a bit more expensive than recertified datacenter WDs from SPD though. I can run a 48TB array with 4-disk redundancy with such disks from SPD for the price of the equivalent 48TB array made of shucked external WDs with 2-disk redundancy. The 4-disk redundant system will be more performant. I'm going to use my shucked WD array till it croaks but I'd be buying recertified replacements as the disks die.
That's why the extra redundancy. The probability of 2 or 3 disks failing should be significantly lower than 1 disk failing. I currently run 2-disk redundancy. If 1 disk fails, I'd replace it. If a second disk fails while the replacement is being resilvered, I'd shit a brick, stop the resilver and make an incremental backup to ensure I won't lose data if another disk fails due to the resilver load. Then I'd proceed with the resilver. RAID is not backup and the extra redundancy is there to reduce the probability to have to spend time restoring backups. Increased redundancy can compensate for individual disk reliability.
I bought 5x 16T recertified WD from SPD. Running in RAIDz2 (2-disk redundancy) config since April. I've yet to have an issue. They have 3 years manufacturer warranty so it's not even a huge deal if some die in a while. I paid USD $160 per drive.
Sounds a bit like not enough redundancy. Once you go into redundant mode, the individual disk quality is no longer nearly as important. 2 or 3 disk redundancy, and you can use whatever garbage comes your way.
This is what I'm thinking too. The only likely scenario under which the plaintext and MITM words make sense together is HTTP. I wouldn't put it past Linksys to have used an HTTP API endpoint but these days a lot of things scream if you use HTTP. Thanks for the work!
I'm just finding no confirmation that they send them unencrypted over the Internet and I've seen "researchers" calling sending passwords over HTTPS "unencrypted."
Mesh coordination is interesting. It's not great. That said I doubt that any off-the-shelf consumer mesh system does go through the work to keep things local-only. It's too easy to setup a cloud API and therefore likely all of them do that since it's the cheapest.
Selling copies of free software is straight up encouraged by the FSF. You don't have to buy a copy. You can copy the source code and build t yourself. But selling it is legitimate.