Viewing profile — krondor

Excellent, not sure what I missed before, but I have aptx and aac now! A good step in the right direction. Still would love LDAC and/or Aptx HD of course in the long run.

Thanks, it looks similar to what I've tried so far. I'll give it another run through and see if I missed something.

No, I meant AAC. The XM3s do not seem to negotiate AAC over BT on OSX. They fall back to SBC and obviously sound bad. AAC would be a step up, but AptX HD or LDAC would be ideal. Th…

I have never been able to get it to negotiate AAC on OSX, though technically it does support it. iPhone works fine. Even still LDAC seems superior from my comparison to my Android …

Actually those Sony headphones are one of the reasons I am interested in Linux instead of OSX. LDAC support is not present on OSX, but it is for Linux. It makes a huge difference i…

This is not so different actually, and has been done in the past by other auto manufacturers (some may even still be doing this today). The Ford River Rouge plant is the best examp…

I'm not sure about FreeNAS, but I do want to point out this is possible in the btrfs filesystem (sharded raid across drives). I'm not aware of any FreeNAS equivalents though utiliz…

Thank you, this was a great reply. Reading the discussions have been interesting.

Canonical is doing so anyway and it seems they have a legal disagreement on the interpretation of the law with the Software Freedom Conservancy. IANAL so I have no clue what is tec…

Yes, apologies, I did mean lzo. zlib seemed perhaps too much on the CPU side of the IO/CPU calculation. I am excited to see how btrfs snappy and lz4 support compares when they are …

Btrfs is not beta, see the discussion re: maturity below. ZFS is an excellent filesystem, btrfs is an excellent filesystem. There is room for both excellent options for users.

I believe you're misunderstanding the problems that occur on a cow filesystem. In fact btrfs already has an overcommit disk buffer, and is already doing many ENOSPACE handling tric…

I'm going to disagree with you re: compression. Compression at the FS layer brings a lot of benefits, and generally most workloads are IO constrained not CPU constrained. Compressi…

You are correct that btrfs and ZFS are sensitive to low disk space. This is also related to how cow filesystems function, they need that free space to commit writes and for snapsho…

As zanny said, cow presents an issue for transactional workloads (databases, vm images, etc...) as each write fragments the file, by nature of the process of cow. btrfs can handle …

That seems ill advised, one of the benefits of btrfs is it obviates the need for lvm and mdadm. I guess in your case you have a more stable raid5/6 opportunity, but you're losing m…

ZFS is in Ubuntu 16.04 without a PPA, by the way.

Yes, thanks for catching that, I've edited the parent. As you can tell I'm not that strong on ZFS other than what I've learned in some small tinkering and discussion with others.

Agreed, my workload is probably not representative of a small organization or user. I absolutely leverage resiliency in software, distributed computing, and mitigate single points …

I believe on Ubuntu 16.04 ZFS is not using dkms. You'd want to check, because I'm not currently running it, but that's what I have been told.

That's a fair point. I guess we can debate what 'mature' means. In development since 2007, stable since 2014. ZFS, in development since 2001 (correction I erroneously listed 2005 e…

btrfs is most certainly not dead. I actually think it's really gaining traction presently. It only became stable near Ubuntu 14.04 or so, and it takes people awhile (understandably…

Interesting findings. I'm curious also to see how fixed width stripes change the performance profile in btrfs (presently not supported). To be clear though, the raid5/6 write hole …