The recommendation is still to store metadata on a raid 1 or 1/0 partition and the data on a raid 5/6. Apparently there's still some issues with raid 5/6

It still has an issue with getting stuck in a bad state if you let the free space drop too low (e.g. under 5% / 2GB). It might still be recoverable but it takes a lot of fiddling and work to do that.

In the US, a lot of car dealerships make a good portion of the profits from a car sale from the loan. E.g. the lender gives the dealer a kickback on the loan and that is a good portion of the total profit. It's somewhat analogous to how US airlines make their profits from credit card deals and selling miles.

That failure mode is still there although it's been mitigated a bit. I hit it a few months ago but was able to recover after a few hours of doing various stuff.

Yeah that's not how filesystems are supposed to work.

You should be able to dd /dev/zero to a file and not worry about the entire filesystem shitting the bed.

It's been around in slang for a few years with a few variants, e.g. "I haven't seen her in a hot minute." I think it's just filtered into wider cultural vernacular.

people have been saying "it's been a minute" to mean a long time since at least the 90s in NY

Yeah, I’ve been saying hot minutes for decades myself!

It seems that btrfs is being phased out of fedora. It looks like Fedora will be moving to stratis storage over the next year or two. Btrfs is nice but it's raid5/6 support still seems shaky and there's odd corner cases that apply to all btrfs setups (getting stuck when free space is low is mostly resolved but can still occur).

I no longer have the direct relationships with storage folks at Red Hat that I once did and that stuff may all be over on the IBM side anyway. Stratis (which I wasn't familiar with) does seem to be designed with the intention of bringing a lot of pooling etc. on top of a conventional file system but haven't really looked at or talked to anyone in the storage groups recently. Conventional LVM was pretty old and really designed for a different time.

I'm not super-plugged into Fedora these days. Red Hat has long been pretty comfortable with a more conventional file system (think it's still XFS out of SGI by default) plus volume management for RHEL. ZFS was a non-starter for licensing reasons and Oracle; btrfs just wasn't there. I suspect things could have played out differently had Oracle relicensed ZFS once upon a time but that ship has likely sailed in a variety of ways.

You may not believe it but it is true: https://docs.redhat.com/en/documentation/red_hat_enterprise_...

I vaguely know some of the backstory of moving off ext4 (as default). As I understood it at the time, it was less focused on some of the larger systems Red Hat was interested in.

The main problem with ReiserFS is Reiser killed his wife so it is unmaintained.

That's why I called it "reisserFS" and not reiserfs. I am well aware of the controversies because of what he did on the non-technical side. I am also of course for a very long time by now not using it any longer.

I was merely talking about the experience with XFS "back in the day" and yes I was on reiserfs and then XFS "came up" and I changed my home partition to that, coz I was looking to move off of reisserfs. Power outage. Boom, lost half my home dir. Suddenly lots of totally fine metadata wise files had null length. I did go back to reiserfs until ext4 was stable enough after that. I will never try XFS ever again, sorry. Loosing data is the thing that a file system can't do to me if they want to "retain my business" so to speak.

And yes, reiserfs I actually tested and had survive some power outages totally fine too. I believed the XFS hype too much without proper testing. My bad I guess in that sense. We were all young once. But also: Never again XFS ;)

There is that. I think ReiserSF used to be the default that SUSE used. These days, it seems to be btrfs for root and XFS for everything else.

Stratis does not support data integrity checksums. There is dm-integrity hack but it slows down the write speed by halve.

If a founder is going to VCs or the markets in general for funding, there's no way to really do this. I don't see how the vast majority of founders can realistically expect others to fund their companies and still let the founder have the final say on all company matters.

If founders are willing to self-finance or finance based on cash-flow/collateral, that's a different story. But if you're selling majority stakes of your company's equity to others in order to finance your operations and growth, the equity owners should get a majority vote in how your company runs.

> I don't see how the vast majority of founders can realistically expect others to fund their companies and still let the founder have the final say on all company matters.

By not selling the controlling majority stake in their company, or retain super-voting rights. Anything to not give anyone the possibility to take their company from them.

Well, not selling controlling majority stake is fine. What people have issues with are the super-voting rights that where the people owning those rights get to play with other's money with the others not having much say on how that money gets used. E.g. look at meta's VR spending as an example.

The unhappy investors can sell their Meta shares and invest in something else if they don't like it, no? Now, since they are just unhappy but don't sell, it means Meta still makes money for them.

And FB is a lesson to a lot of companies and the public not to allow the same dual class stock structure. Zuckerberg can cash out a lot of his equity and still be the controlling force behind FB even though other people "own" a majority stake of the stocks and equity.

Iran had a pretty strict P5 agreement under Obama that would have prevented Iran getting nukes for sanctions relief and other benefits. For some reason, a president decided to toss it for no apparent benefit.

Trump literally said a day or two ago that if Iran had nukes, he'd treat them a lot nicer and would cozy up to them like with China, Russia, and North Korea. Given that what government wouldn't serious consider obtaining nukes if only as a matter of survival?

The following wiki article has a section on it. Cluster munitions allow you to saturate areas and prevent infantry from advancing. The issue is that some of the submunitions malfunction and sit around on the ground and injury civilians (particularly children since they look like toys at times) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-purpose_improved_conventi...