On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 10:05:14PM -0400, Derek Atkins wrote:
It
pulls up to 250W so it will cost a little more to power so somewhere
around $4000 the first year and $1600/year to operate.
WOW!!! Your electricity is EX..PEN...SIVE! Assuming my math is right,
250W is 1kWh every 4
What puzzles me is what people are doing at home to use up all that
disk space.
My music collection is about 150GB. I like to keep 3 copies of everything so
there’s 450GB. I don’t keep a copy offsite in the cloud just because of it’s
size. I keep one copy on a USB drive in a fire proof
Check out Linode.com
Matt
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Eric Chadbourne eric.chadbou...@icloud.com
wrote:
Hi All,
Any VPS suggestions? For the last year I’ve been using Digital Ocean.
The price is right and the servers are fast. Unfortunately it appears
apt-get can’t update the
On Jul 10, 2015, at 9:54 AM, Eric Chadbourne eric.chadbou...@icloud.com
wrote:
Hi All,
Any VPS suggestions? For the last year I’ve been using Digital Ocean. The
price is right and the servers are fast. Unfortunately it appears apt-get
can’t update the kernel. You have to use
Hi All,
Any VPS suggestions? For the last year I’ve been using Digital Ocean. The
price is right and the servers are fast. Unfortunately it appears apt-get
can’t update the kernel. You have to use their web based gui. This isn’t
acceptable to me.
Anybody have any suggestions? Are you
On 7/9/2015 10:05 PM, Derek Atkins wrote:
Does this $2239 price include the 8 drives?
Yes: with 8x3TB. The empty chassis is about $1K.
WOW!!! Your electricity is EX..PEN...SIVE! Assuming my math is right,
The $1600/year figure includes ISP cost. Yeah, I worded that poorly.
Actual
Looks like I can rebuild the Digital Ocean server. Move it from Ubuntu LTS to
one of their supported systems that allows updates at terminal.
https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to-update-a-digitalocean-server-s-kernel
What a pain in the ass. I spent hours getting this one
On 7/10/2015 1:13 PM, Kent Borg wrote:
Certainly. But as with batteries, the technology changes, and there are
qualitative consequences. For example, the Wikipedia article on RAID
says that Dell recommends against RAID 5 with disks 1TB or larger on
some Dell product-or-other, because the very
Ok, a rookie question (but real) here. How do you know if your drive is
near 'end of life'? Calendar? SMART statistics? Hours of runtime?
I have been known to wait till the 'wheels fall off', but that always
causes minor panics and excess effort.
Suggestions that are easy to follow and
Google published a study a number of years ago, based on statistics they
gathered of drive performance in their enormous collection of servers over
many years.
One of their conclusions was that hard drives tend to have a useful life of
three years: the odds of catastrophic failure were very low
On 7/10/2015 2:23 PM, John Abreau wrote:
Based on the statistics they gathered, they recommended a policy of
replacing drives every three years regardless of whether they're failing
yet. The idea is that disks are cheap these days, and the cost of losing
data far outweighs the cost of replacing
On 7/10/2015 12:06 PM, Kent Borg wrote:
Feels like RAID is dying of disks being too inexpensive, or better put,
too big at a still-affordable price. The amount of data to copy to bring
a new disk into an existing array is getting too big. It takes too long,
it starts to consume too much of the
Clearly the answer is RAIN (Redundant Array of Inexpensive NASes).
/me rushes to trademark, monetize
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Kent Borg kentb...@borg.org wrote:
On 07/10/2015 12:36 PM, Richard Pieri wrote:
The answer to this conundrum is simple: disks are consumables like toner
and
On 07/07/2015 01:19 PM, Derek Atkins wrote:
The 24-bay NORCO box is under $400.
Jeepers. A few numbers in a calculator and I have to remind myself we
are talking TB not mere GB.
Feels like RAID is dying of disks being too inexpensive, or better put,
too big at a still-affordable price. The
On 07/10/2015 12:36 PM, Richard Pieri wrote:
The answer to this conundrum is simple: disks are consumables like
toner and paper and batteries.
Certainly. But as with batteries, the technology changes, and there are
qualitative consequences. For example, the Wikipedia article on RAID
says
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 02:23:55PM -0400, John Abreau wrote:
Based on the statistics they gathered, they recommended a policy of
replacing drives every three years regardless of whether they're failing
yet. The idea is that disks are cheap these days, and the cost of losing
data far outweighs
On 07/10/2015 03:36 PM, Richard Pieri wrote:
On 7/10/2015 3:08 PM, Kent Borg wrote:
But like many nice ideas, this one only goes so far: after a few cycles
you can't get matched replacement disks and a bit later technology
likely changes enough you need to rethink everything.
This is one
On 07/10/2015 02:23 PM, John Abreau wrote:
Based on the statistics they gathered, they recommended a policy of
replacing drives every three years regardless of whether they're failing
yet.
Consider staggering your replacement schedule for disks in a raid set so
that they are out of sync and
On 7/10/2015 3:08 PM, Kent Borg wrote:
But like many nice ideas, this one only goes so far: after a few cycles
you can't get matched replacement disks and a bit later technology
likely changes enough you need to rethink everything.
This is one way that ZFS and Btrfs are superior: they don't
On 07/10/2015 01:15 PM, Gordon Marx wrote:
Clearly the answer is RAIN (Redundant Array of Inexpensive NASes).
I love it!
Well, MooseFS is exactly that. RAIN. (Along with glusterfs, etc, etc.)
/me rushes to trademark, monetize
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Kent Borg kentb...@borg.org
On 07/10/2015 01:27 PM, Richard Pieri wrote:
On 7/10/2015 1:13 PM, Kent Borg wrote:
Certainly. But as with batteries, the technology changes, and there are
qualitative consequences. For example, the Wikipedia article on RAID
says that Dell recommends against RAID 5 with disks 1TB or larger on
As drive capacities increased, transfer speed also did. (You have updated your
motherboards to 6G SATA, right?) I posted here not too long ago that I'd
suffered a triple-disk failure, which forced me to buy into the current crop of
magnetic media rather than wait see what the SSD market looks
When: July 15, 2015 7PM (6:30PM for QA)
Topic: Federico's 2015 OSCON Preview
Moderators:Federico Lucifredi
Location: MIT Building E-51, Room 335
### Please note that Wadsworth St. is still closed.
### Proceed West on Memorial Drive to Ames St. Ames will be
### 2-way during construction. Take a
On 07/10/2015 03:15 PM, Mike Small wrote:
I guess my point is people shouldn't be slavish to that advice. It
would be good if there were some to take up the detritus from those
companies and enthusiasts who are churning through all this junk
every couple years. Oh, and it would be nice if
On 7/10/2015 4:08 PM, F. O. Ozbek wrote:
That assumes drives only die out of old age, which is not true. Some
batch of hard-drives will be bad, and may die at high rates during
their 3/5 year life span.
These are exceedingly rare. Yes, there have been a handful of
high-profile exceptions. Data
Not familiar with OpenSWAN, but in OpenVPN sometimes you have to push
routes to the clients to force traffic through.
Does your routing table look right?
On 7/9/2015 10:44 AM, Matt Shields wrote:
Does anyone have a working OpenSWAN config or can you see what the issue
might be below? Current
26 matches
Mail list logo
