Pretty much every alerting system I know also has a filter option to only apply automated discovery rules to certain filesystem types.

But yes, most don’t first squashfs or mounted read-only snapshots by default and it sucks.

How old are you?

Are you using zfs?

That’s why you do regular restore tests on separate systems. That should be standard procedure for any company. A fully encrypted disk should be noticable immediately.

If your backups are online and not in a warehouse, you are doing it wrong. Even my own personal backups are on disconnected disks. What a bunch of amateurs.

They sure have Nazis in Ukraine as has every country.

But saying that the fascists in Italy have anything to do with Ukraine needs very good evidence to support such a wild claim.

You can’t trust any full disk encryption without it because only a TPM can verify that your bootloader and initrd are not compromised.

I get what you mean but please read the study: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41347-023-00304-7

They themselves note that the very small sample size would be an issue. They say they would need 78 people for even remotely confident results, then they initially targeted 74 people, of which 20 dropped out.

Let me be clear that I too want to believe that social networks are bad for people, but studies like this one do very very little to provide any meaningful data to base my opinion on.

Sample size, 50 students. Lol nothing to see here. This has no value whatsoever.

What’s the problem with that script? That’s such a basic use case and not very hard to do at all in systemd.

Where do you struggle with it? Can we maybe help with something?

Replace Debian apt sources with Ubuntu ones, do system upgrade and install the Ubuntu-Desktop package, now you have Ubuntu.

It’s been a while since I have done this, but it’s totally possible.

We did this transition from Ubuntu to Debian at Work with thousands of workstations.

It requires a bit of time and testing but it’s possible.

For a handful of servers, try zabbix. Every distribution has a packaged zabbix agent. It has everything: web ui, a way to Auto discover things with a bit of setup, nice graphs, alerting, LDAP User Management if you need it, a way to define per person/group alerting/notification schedules. And the community is big enough that many common services (fail2ban/postfix/MySQL/etc.) have premade custom monitoring scripts. Adding your own metrics is also very easy.

I don’t quite agree because children will also readily make other children or trees or stones or the sky their enemy if they feel like it. And they will go out of their way to recruit other people to fight against said perceived enemies.

Tell that to our beautiful German Telekom who’ll sell you 1000down/200up FTTH for ridiculous 80€/month.

Honestly by far the best subscription I have.

13€/month to never see ads on any device, give a lot more money to creators and free access to YouTube music so I don’t need Spotify anymore. It’s amazing how much you get for comparatively little money.

Not really. You can still use dm-verity for a normal raid and get checksumming and normal performance, which is better and faster than using btrfs.

But in any case, I’d recommend just going with zfs because it has all the features and is plenty fast.

From arch wiki:

Disabling CoW in Btrfs also disables checksums. Btrfs will not be able to detect corrupted nodatacow files. When combined with RAID 1, power outages or other sources of corruption can cause the data to become out of sync.

No thanks

If you are planning to have any kind of database with regular random writes, stay away from btrfs. It’s roughly 4-5x slower than zfs and will slowly fragment itself to death.

I’m migrating a server from btrfs to zfs right now for this very reason. I have multiple large MySQL and SQLite tables on it and they have accumulated >100k file fragments each and have become abysmally slow. There are lots of benchmarks out there that show that zfs does not have this issue and even when both filesystems are clean, database performance is significantly higher on zfs.

If you don’t want a COW filesystem, then XFS on LVM raid for databases or ext4 on LVM for everything else is probably fine.

Let’s do the math.

Crude oil is 85% carbon. Dry wood is about 50% carbon. Average oil production worldwide in the last 20 years is about 73million barrels per day or 26.6 billion barrels per year.

So just in oil, we produced around 26.6*20 = 532 billion barrels of oil. At a weight of 136kg/barrel, that equals 72billion tonnes of oil. Because it’s 85% carbon, that equals 61.5billion tonnes of pure carbon.

Converting this into wood would require 123 billion tonnes of wood. At an average density of 650kg/m3 for Oak, which grows reasonably fast, that equals 189 billion cubic meters of wood. That’s a solid 1 meter thick square of wood with an edge length of 434km that we would need to STORE indefinitely to offset just the crude oil of the last 20 years. That’s 53% of the surface area of Germany in 1 meter thick wood and every year we’d additionally need to grow, harvest and store enough wood to cover 46% of Wales in 1 meter of solid dry wood.

Seems doable 🤣

I was about to argue with you but the dictionary says you are right.

Take my upvote.