Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Come the fuck on (Score 1) 245

From what I have read, btrfs is stable if used in a RAID 1 configuration. However, it seems that RAID 5... is a completely different story altogether. I'm sure it has gotten better, but as of now, I've not read anything about catastrophic data loss on anything but striped arrays.

Given that it appears to be stable, btrfs does have a few advantages, mainly being able to handle bit rot, as well as snapshots (which are definitely not backups, but they are another tool to help prevent data loss.)

If btrfs is a concern, one can run without it. The less expensive ARM based units don't have it as an option, but they do offer RAID (assuming a more than single drive model.)

All and all, NAS appliances have their use. Especially with offloading stuff that would take up resources on an active machine or VM. For example, having the appliance handle basic Git repositories is nice, as well as DNS caching.

Comment Re:Come the fuck on (Score 3, Informative) 245

As others have said, 4TB isn't that much. The key is to have a 3-2-1 plan for the data -- 3+ copies, 2 on different media, one offsite:

First, I'd recommend purchasing a NAS appliance. Synology and QNAP offerings are inexpensive and even though one can build their own system with FreeNAS or something else, a small NAS appliance takes up relatively little in wattage, which is nice for the electric bill. I also like the fact that you have the ability to encrypt data, and segment it into shares. Some NAS models even allow for snapshots. They are not too expensive -- an ARM based dual-drive NAS is about $150 + drives.

For four terabytes, I would recommend a Synology DS216+ ii (the reason for the long name is that the DS216+ had components which were discontinued, so the mark 2 edition is current. This NAS model is x86 based and can use btrfs to detect bit rot on the RAID volumes) Then, drop in two WD Reds (6 or 8 TB), and you have RAID 1.

Second, buy an external USB drive to plug to the NAS. RAID and snapshots are nice, but this provides a true backup mechanism.

Third, get an offsite backup mechanism. QNAP and Synology have software that can back up to a number of providers, and back stuff up encrypted. There are many offsite backup providers out there.

Fourth, consider a manual offsite mechanism, even if it is another external hard drive that you plug in, dump the contents of the NAS to, remove, and put offsite somewhere. This way, if you lose your NAS and Net connection, you still have some means to access your data.

Comment Re:I'm having fun (Score 1) 317

Actually, no. It was very explicitly defined. Sean Murray, right up to days before the release, made explicit, yes-or-no responses to things contained in the game. Almost all of which were false. When things started turning out to not be in the game, such as multiplayer, he pretended it was a "bug" that people couldn't see each other - even though it was demonstrably not supported, including there being no real-time network traffic and no player models in the game files.

It's not a case of "buyers filling in the gaps". It's a case of the developer deliberately trying to deceive customers about what the game contained. Including putting a deliberately long painful grind to reach the center of the galaxy, and telling people that all sorts of neat stuff was near the center, to keep them playing for long periods of time. A cynical individual would view that as them deliberately trying to get people to play for too long to get a refund.

Comment Re:If your ads for "Titanic" say the ship sinks (Score 1) 317

Apparently you don't know the difference between a statement of opinion and a statement of fact.

Ad: "Ghostbusters is funny"
You: "It wasn't funny."

Liability: None. Because that's an opinion.


Ad: "Ghostbusters stars Tom Hanks."
You: "No, it doesn't."

Liability: Yes. Because that's false advertising.

Understand the difference?

Comment Re:50 hours of crap. (Score 1) 317

You'd have as much luck "meeting up" in Super Mario Brothers. There is no real-time networking traffic and no player models in NMS. The "whoops, there must be a bug" reaction is a baldfaced lie.

And the claim that it's unrealistic to reach the same place are BS. There are not 2^64 stars in the starting galaxy (Euclid), only a few tens of billions. And everyone starts out roughly the same distance from the center, which means that they're all in a narrow spherical shell containing only a tiny fraction of those stars. It's rare in the game to not come across systems discovered by others, even when you're not trying.

(The 2^64 claim is valid, but only in that there are 2^32 galaxies)

As for day and night, the game is totally inconsistent about that. You can approach the "day" side of a planet and have it turn out to be night, and vice versa. Really it's hard to think of something in the game that's *not* totally glitched. Even keyboard support is glitched - punctuation in naming discoveries gets mixed up. I mean, how the heck do you even manage to mess up something like that? Oh god, let's not get into the naming filter that lets through names like "Cum Mountain" but bans words like "Cousin" and "Can't".

Comment Re:Won't be uncommon in 70 years (Score 1) 172

Although there a many doubter, to me it doesn't matter whether this one person reached that age (his relative may argue or not), what matters is that it won't be uncommon in 70 years (those in their 50 and 60 could go beyond that). A number of technologies are reaching their tipping point.

So far we have not come up with a single intervention of any kind, "technology" or not, that increases the human maximum lifespan by a single day. Nothing that actually slows down aging in humans. Nothing. What we are doing is preventing premature death. We are having a greater fraction living to the same maximum longevities already observed.

So far the only interventions that actually extend observed maximum longevity in rats are regimes of privation that would be considered torture in humans, and could only be maintained by perpetual imprisonment (like lab rats).

Tell us about some of these promising "technologies".

Comment Re: Given the reviews (Score 1) 317

Indeed. While the landscape goes through LOD changes (although way slower than should be necessary, given that they're not doing any physics, no flowing water, nothing of the sort), there's apparently no LOD work with plant and animal models - they're always the same resolution no matter how close or far they are from you. So the game simply can't afford to have too many of them. Not a problem when they're tiny, but when they're big things that should be able to be seen from far away...

Comment Re:No good-guys here (Score 1) 317

Which was yet another lie.

1) Players playing has gone down over 90% since then on average. At off peak it's a fraction of even that. It makes no difference.

2) There is no attempt at real-time network traffic whatsoever. Nothing sends out real-time packets. Nothing is designed to receive them.

3) There is no player model in the game's files. There's some comically bad development models, along with weirdness like a monkey in a hat and the Fallout logo. But no actual player model.

There is no multiplayer. It's not a "bug". It is simply not there, and they know it.

Comment Re:Given the reviews (Score 2) 317

To be fair, the landscapes can often be quite beautiful. The procedural generation algorithm can have its limitations, but it also shows promise. It was just released too soon. It's actually IMHO the best part of the game. The "game" aspects are what are terribly done.

And concerning procedural generation, it was crippled by their lack of optimization, which prevented them from having large plants / animals without making the already bad pop-in unacceptable. So everything is kept small to moderate in size, which eliminates the "epicness" of planetary exploration. The potential can really be seen with things like the Big Things mod (though you can also see why they cut it, they would have gotten endless bug reports about the pop-in).

Slashdot Top Deals

The test of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts. -- Aldo Leopold