I use Immich. It does what you described as well.

I’m not sure why every time I look at this project, it rubs me the wrong way. Anyone found anything wrong with it?

Accurate.

As far as I can tell it dates back to at least 2010 - https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19253-01/819-5461/githb/index.html. See the Solaris version. You can try it with small test files in place of disks and see if it works. I haven’t done it expansion yet but that’s my plan for growing beyond the 48T of my current pool. I use ZFS on Linux btw. Works perfectly fine.

I think data checksums allow ZFS to tell which disk has the correct data when there’s a mismatch in a mirror, eliminating the need for 3-way mirror to deal with bit flips and such. A traditional mirror like mdraid would need 3 disks to do this.

Not that I want to push ZFS or anything, mdraid/LVM/XFS is a fine setup, but for informational purposes - ZFS can absolutely expand onto larger disks. I wasn’t aware of this until recently. If all the disks of an existing pool get replaced with larger disks, the pool can expand onto the newly available space. E.g. a RAIDz1 with 4x 4T disks will have usable space of 12T. Replace all disks with 8T disks (one after another so that it can be done on the fly) and your pool will have 24T of space. Replace those with 16T and you get 48T, and so on. In addition you can expand a pool by adding another redundant topology just like you can with LVM and mdraid. E.g. 4x 4T RAIDz1 + 3x 8T RAIDz2 + 2x 16T mirror for a total of 44T. Finally, expanding existing RAIDz with additional disks has recently landed too.

And now for pushing ZFS - I was doing file based replication on a large dataset for many years. Just going over all the hundreds of thousands of dirs and files took over an hour on my setup. That’s then followed by a diff transfer. Think rsync or Syncthing. That’s how I did it on my old mdraid/LVM/Ext4 setup, and that’s how I continued doing on my newer ZFS setup. Recently I tried using ZFS send/receive which operates within the filesystem. It completely eliminated the dataset file walk and stat phase since the filesystem already knows all of the metadata. The replication was reduced to just the diff file transfer time. What used to take over an hour got reduced to seconds or minutes, depending on the size of the changed data. I can now do multiple replications per hour without significant load on the system. Previously it was only feasible overnight because the system would be robbed of IOPS for over an hour.

If you can, move to a RAID-equivalent setup with ZFS (preferred in my opinion) in order to also know about and fix silent data corruption. RAIDz1, RAIDz2 would do the equivalent to RAID5, RAID6. That should eliminate one more variable with cheap drives.

Due to risk of failure or risk of data corruption because the mirror can’t tell which drive is right when there’s a difference?

Get more drives, run higher redundancy 💪

Three-way mirror?

Then Qualcomm would become a national security asset. 😂 In fact that alone sounds like a great reason for acquisition. It’s not every day that you get a obvious way to become too big/important to fail.

Qualcomm is also American.

Whether Intel sells or not is decided by its major shareholders, pending regulatory approval, not Intel’s execs or employees. Those shareholders would likely receive shares of Qualcomm which would now include Intel’s expected future profits, or cash that they can use to buy Qualcomm shares to capture those profits.

Buy recertified enterprise grade disks from https://serverpartdeals.com. Prices were around $160/16TB the last time I checked. Mix brands and models to reduce simultaneous failure. Use more than 1-disk redundancy. If you can’t buy from SPD, either find an alternative or buy external drives and shuck them. Use ZFS to know if your data is correct. I’ve been dealing with funny AMD USB controllers recently and the amount of silent data corruption I’d have gotten if not for ZFS is ridiculous.

I don’t think anyone makes SMR drives in the current lineups anymore.

Switching wholesale from a brand or model to another could be counterproductive. There are myriad of reasons why drives can fail that aren’t related to the brand and the model. What if you unknowingly switch to a less reliable model because of such a reason? You’d end up worse off. For example according to Backblaze’s data, Seagate is generally worse than WD.

A better way to do this is to mix brands and models so that there’s less probability to fail at the same time. I have both WD and Seagate in a single storage pool, even if the Seagate model is objectively less reliable according to Backblaze.

That’s how you know the map is fake.

You already trust these people today. They run/own many large corporations today which dramatically affect our lives in multitude of ways. Except today we can’t get remove them from these positions of power under the current system.

It’s thanks to this in part that your aunt keeps indulging her imaginary pain when she thinks about your lifestyle.

No no no

And they managed to do that with those lazy US workers? Wow.

E: folks, pls look up TSMC bosses’ statements on American workers’ ethic

All decent DP KVMs are very expensive. I got an IOGEAR which is a rebranded Aten. It was also in the same price range. Who knew high resolution needs high bandwidth and high bandwidth signaling and switching is hard…