Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment ZFS - one onsite one offsite (Score 1) 414

Setup your own home server, barter with a friend to setup an offsite server at his place using his internet connection. Rsync from your home system to the offsite. Make sure to ssh in a couple times a month to check the server status. For data integrity, I recommend zfs.

I am a big fan of zfs for its data integrity features. What I did is below

Home Server (you can configure a minimal hardware file server with components to fit your needs, this is just what I used) Quad core Athlon X4

16gb memory


9x2tb hdd

The hard drives are configured using raid-z2 with one spare. I am using zfs on linux now, but freebsd works great, and their forums are very helpful for people new to bsd. This server is overpowered for my uses, but it also is a media server, web server, samba server, etc. ZFS has snapshots as well, which work great.

Off site (at a friends house)

Core2 Duo

8GB memory

onboard sata

4x2tb hdd using zfs / raidz2

This system is a low power system sitting in his closet using his internet connection. I only sync the stuff it would be difficult for me to replace. The initial filesystem was created at my house, directly off my server to RSYNC only has to send deltas.

I looked at online backup solutions, but my upload speed is so slow (512K up) that it would take forever to get the initial upload into the vapor. Further, the low end, low cost providers I would look at are more likely to fold, leaving me without a backup.

Comment Re:Then what file system should we all use? (Score 4, Informative) 459

I use zfs quite a bit. Huge zfs fan.

How much data did you have on a single large zdev that it required that amount of time? I tend to group mine into groups of 8 disks with raidz2. When I have to rebuild, it does so at the write speed of the new disk (100+MB/sec). If you have a relatively small array and it still takes 45 days to rebuild then you have a hardware issue, or you are using an siig card, which has horrible performance under all the unix/linux variants I have used.

I use zfs on linux at home with an 8 disk raidz2 array for network storage. On a core 2 duo / 2.5ghz using an lsi 1068 based card, I achieve a rebuild speed of 80+MB per second, a scrub speed of 150+MB/sec. At work, I use it to store spatial data / 3d video using zfs on linux. Multiple 8 disk raidz2 devices connected via lsi 9200 card. I achieve a rebuild speed of 80+MB per second, a scrub speed of 250+MB/sec.

If you use junk cards, you get junk performance.

Comment Re:What scares me.. (Score 1) 395

Lat's take a little look at my bandwidth usage over the weekend. I have Time Warner Cable in one of the areas they are now implementing metered service - though I should not be affected since I have business class service (and have had for 7 years now).
  • Reinstall Windows XP/MS Office 2007 on my laptop. Download and install updated. Usage: 2GB - 3GB.
  • Downlaod game demo for The Last Remnant. Usage: 1GB
  • Pull a copy of the project documentation/source code for work. Usage: 500MB
  • Connect to my office via Citrix and get some work done. Usage: Unknown
  • Play a few capture the flag matches with friends on Unreal. Usage: Unknown
  • Surf the web aimlessly for three hours when I just meant to look up a recipe. Usage: Unknown
  • Download and install the latest security tools (AV, Spyware, Etc), and install them on my laptop. Usage: 100MB
  • Upload photos from my camera to flickr: Usage: 50MB
  • Receive photos in email from friends/family: Usage: 50MB

Note the unknowns in the list. Their are many things where the bandwidth usage just is not well defined, so how am I to judge their cost? Even if we ignore that, I would guess that I used 5 to 6 GB in just one day for those items listed. Without streaming video, without downloading the latest Ubuntu, without using any file sharing application or tool I have already used a good portion of my "allocated" bandwidth. Nothing I did would be considered "extreme" usage, and everything I did would have been considered normal usage 10 Years Ago. So why is it my ability is being limited now?

Why is it only in areas without reasonable competition that this is being deployed?

Why is it the cost per unit of bandwidth is so unreasonably high?

Why are their "caps" so artificially low?

These are the questions, and until I receive good answers, I will have to refer to Time Warner's broadband offerings with scorn.

In terms of competition, this area does have AT&T as an alternative. I did try to switch to AT&T on three occasions, on each of these occasions the incompetence of their agents and the lack of communication between the companies numerous divisions and their agents made me go back to TW. The only reason I was trying to switch was so I could get more that one static IP at a reasonable cost. Even though I practically live downtown, they were never able to 1) arrive on their scheduled date, 2) arrive at their scheduled time, 3) provide the equipment needed to use their services, 4) Provision the account for use, and 5) Mark the account as active. The one time I finally got the service to work (three months late), it stopped working after two weeks. When I called, I was told that my installation had been canceled because I was too far away from the CO for DSL to work (I had been using it successfully for three weeks at this point). Every time I have dealt with AT&T, it has been a comedy of errors, screw-ups, and misinformation. Thankfully, I had never cut off my cable modem. I have not tried again in a number of years, as my need for the multiple addresses evaporated. I am not inclined to give them another chance.

Until they started this metered broadband crap, I have actually been happy with the service I receive from Time Warner's Road Runner Service. I have had no serious billing or technical issues, and have always received prompt, courteous service. I don't like the scripts their first line of tech support people go through, but once you get past them, their people are usually knowledgeable. The only reason I ever considered moving away was because I wanted a service they did not offer for a reasonable fee.

Comment Re:Sorta related: Yahoo mail got worse (Score 2, Informative) 653

I used to use hotmail religiously. I joined them shortly after the opened the service for the public (back when their was a 2 MB limit on email!).

Then Microsoft bought them, and I thought "Mayne it won't be too bad".

"Lost" e-mails, loads of spam, unreliable delivery and receipt. These things pushed me to look at other services, but the final straw was the ads. The large, glaring, annoying, brightly colored/blinking/moving ads. It was like trying to read a book while someone points a flashlight into your eyes.

So I moved to GMail. Their are ads, but they are unobtrusive. I see them at the top of the page, and I have even clicked on a few, but they don't interfere with what I came to do - read my e-mail.

I recognize that sites need advertising dollars to support themselves, and I hate resorting to ad-blockers for this reason - but the advertising has gone too far. When half the page is flashing/moving you can't focus on the content, and content is what it is all about.

I don't know that I have a point to this message, except maybe to get MY perspective on this issue out there, but I am with you. I hope that the service providers lost enough users to come to their senses.

I do use adblock, but try to keep the bloklist to only the most annoying ads. I also use NoScript, and think it is one of the best extensions out there. Between the to, I rarely see popups. When one does sneak in there, I will usually take steps to keep it from happening again.

Comment Re:Yeah, that's important... (Score 5, Insightful) 386

It isn't that this is important, it is that a lawmaker can attack video games with no real repercussions.

If you fight for gay rights (something sorely missing in America) you are attacked by the "Christian Conservatives", most of whom are as anti-christian as you can be.

If you fight for universal healthcare (yet another important thing), you are attacked by the powerful insurance lobby, and "fiscal conservatives", who are fine spending billions, but only if it goes into the pockets of their cronies.

If you attack video games, however, who attacks you? No (politically) powerful or influential group takes up the mantle. So while the intelligent may see it as a waste of time, and slashdotters may see it for what it is (a problem that could easily be solved if parents simply monitored their children), their is really no downside for the politician.

Slashdot Top Deals