Suzune

This is an old PC (Intel i7 3770K) with 2 HDDs (16 TB) attached to onboard SATA3 controller, 16 GB RAM and 1 SSD (120 GB). Nothing special. And it’s quite busy because it’s my home server with a VM and containers.

The question is how do you get a bad performance with ZFS?

I just tried to read a large file and it gave me uncached 280 MB/s from two mirrored HDDs.

The fourth run (obviously cached) gave me over 3.8 GB/s.

There is nothing to refurbish in drives. They are just second hand devices. You can check if they are fine pretty easy and you need to take a look at the age (power on hours). I replace drives at 50k-60k hours, no matter if they are fine.

Most of these observations are subjective. I’ve had some Seagate drives that worked well but were very hot and wasted energy. On the other hand WD was crap so far, starting with 3 TB. Not because of quality, but because of power saving features that were a major annoyance to me (green and some blue drives). Red drives I had were mostly fine, even they wore out pretty quickly (Load_Cycle_Count bugs). They ran at 0% health left for a few years and had other awful SMART and on-drive controller bugs.

Since Seagate and WD are essentially the same company and they lied about SMR before, I wouldn’t buy either of them.

I’ve seen someone using Adobe Acrobat just for splitting PDF documents.

Are you looking for something like cached credentials?

touch 'C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32'

Read above please. You cannot import GPL code into BSD licensed code without restricting the code distribution. In the other direction, you can do it and just add a notice about the license. It does not add restrictions to the distribution. Otherwise Linux distributions wouldn’t even have OpenSSH in base install images.

Of other software, yes. For example Linux distributions can use the BSD or MIT licensed code without any problems.

But it does not allow to remove the license from the software.

On the other hand GPL code cannot be imported into BSD code without introducing restrictions.

If you think about how many people use proprietary Android by Google, it is exactly comparable.

Comparing numbers is pointless here. Fact is that GPL has more conditions when you’re allowed to use and modify the code. More conditions means more restrictions. And this means, less freedom.

At the moment large companies sponsor the development, without being forced to do so. And they allow developers to spend time on the project for free.

The foundation also makes sure that devs sign an agreement otherwise the code is not accepted.

So where is this all proprietary?

So it’s an argument against restrictive licenses? The more freedom the better? I mean Unix in this case had a too restrictive license?

Hi. Nobody here. Do you know that if you own a PS5 or Nintendo Switch, you’re a FreeBSD user?

Maybe we’ve got a different idea what it means to be a user.

Many manufacturers offer product sheets. You can also use price comparison websites. They sometimes offer an easy way to look at the specs or even compare them side by side.

Some hard drives are built for 24/7 operation. They have higher MTBF ratings and longer guarantees.

Hard drives are very different. Many of them waste energy, lie in the SMART log or just are weird (spin up and down, lose speed, get incredibly hot etc.)

I’ve been self-hosting Postfix for several years and it’s not difficult, if you’re absolutely confident what you do. I don’t recommend it if you don’t know basic behaviors and internals of SMTP and relaying. Also you need to know how to secure your server so you don’t get spammed a lot and getting hammered with brute force attacks.

From time to time you need to react to delivery problems. Most interesting one is perhaps Microsoft, which you need to ask to whitelist your server or your email won’t be accepted.