I have a HP G2 and tracking isn't that great , but if I wasn't as competitive with rythm games as I am I think it wouldn't be a big deal...
I'd suggest you give it a try 😁
Fair point, but while I am not very competitive (in regards to global leaderboards), I do get annoyed easily when the technology makes me lose. So I feel like I'd just end up being really frustrated when I would try to beat my personal best.
hmm, that does not feel like it is a bug, I am not runnig Gnome but a Window Manager and there is a configuration were you can enable/disable that exact behaviour and it is called mouse warping.
You should check your setting for something like that or in Forums online.
The AI lied to me, as I booted a Fedora/Gnome VM and couldn't find that option. My only other guess would be maybe an extension like this was installed and forgotten about because I tend to do that
ZFS kicks arse. It's worth learning enough to get a basic array going, with a couple of datasets and encryption. Once you get acquainted with that, you'll be using it for years to come.
I read somewhere, years ago, that RAID6 takes about 2 cores, on a working server.
That may have been a decade ago, and hardware's improved significantly since then.
Bet on 1 core being saturated, min, with heavy use of a RAID6 or Z2 array, I suspect..
I'd go with software raid, not hardware: with hardware RAID, a dead array, due to a dead controller-card, means you need EXACTLY the same card, possibly the same firmware-revision, to be able to recover the RAID.
With mdadm, that simply isn't a problem: mdadm can always understand mdadm RAID's.
Since hardware RAID is not state of the art anymore I will definetly stick with software RAID. I think I will just build a new server for the money, since an 8-Bay USB enclosure costs around 600€ and for that amount of money I can just build a new server with even better performance
The argument for hardware RAID has typically been about performance. But software RAID has been plenty performant for a very long time. Especially for home-use over USB...
Hardware RAID also requires you to use the same RAID controller to use your RAID. So if that card dies you likely need a replacement to use that RAID. A Linux software RAID can be mounted by any Linux system you like, so long as you get drive ordering correct.
There are two "general" categories for software RAID. The more "traditional" mdadm and filesystem raid-like things.
mdadm creates and manages the RAID in a very traditional way and provides a new filesystem agnostic block device. Typically something like /dev/md0. You can then use whatever FS you like (ext4, btrfs, zfs, or even LVM if you like).
Newer filesystems like BTRFS and ZFS implement raid-like functionality with some advantages and disadvantages. You'll want to do a bit of research here depending on the RAID level you wish to implement. BTRFS, for example, doesn't have a mature RAID5 implementation as far as I'm aware (since last I checked - double-check though).
I'd also recommend thinking a bit about how to expand your RAID later. Run out of space? You want to add drives? Replace drives? The different implementations handle this differently. mdadm has rather strict requirements that all partitions be "the same size" (though you can use a disk bigger than the others but only use part of it). I think ZFS allows for different size disks which may make increasing the size of the RAID easier as you can replace one disk at a time with a larger version pretty easily (it's possible with mdadm - but more complex).
You may also wish to add more disks in the future and not all configurations support that.
I run a RAID5 on mdadm with LVM and ext4 with no trouble. But I built my RAID when BTRFS and ZFS were a bit more experimental so I'm less sure about what they do and how stable they are. For what it's worth my server is a Dell T110 from around 12 years ago. It's a 2 core Intel G850 which isn't breaking any speed records these days. I don't notice any significant CPU usage with my setup.
I used to use mdadm, but ZFS mirrors (equivalent to RAID1) are quite nice. ZFS automatically stores checksums. If some data is corrupted on one drive (meaning the checksum doesn't match), it automatically fixes it for you by getting the data off the mirror drive and overwriting the corrupted data. The read will only fail if the data is corrupted on both drives. This helps with bitrot.
ZFS has raidz1 and raidz2 which use one or two disks for parity, which also has the same advantages. I've only got two 20TB drives in my NAS though, so a mirror is fine.
If I were to redo things today I would probably go with ZFS as well. It seems to be pretty robust and stable. In particular the flexibility in drive sizes when doing RAID. I've been bitten with mdadm by two drives of the "same size" that were off by a few blocks...
Software, software, software! ZFS, mdraid, etc. USB is fine even with hubs, so long as your hubs and USB controllers (USB-to-SATA) are decent and not overheating.
gehirneimer.de
Newest