I was drawing an average of 2.5kWh after a week of monitoring my whole rack
That doesn't seem right; that's only ~18W. Each one of those systems alone will exceed that at idle running 24/7. I'd expect 1-2 orders of magnitude more.
I wouldn't be so pessimistic. The Netherlands was also a car dependent place that bulldozed neighbourhoods for highways a few dozen years ago and look at where they are now. Change can happen, it just needs a critical mass of supporters and time, lots of time.
Journalism that has any tooth whatsoever would mostly fix this.
As long as no proper journalistic standards exists, populists can pour their BS down the media drain unquestioned, unchallenged. If that's all you hear about a topic, that's what you'll believe.
I also have several virtual machines which take up about 100 GiB.
This would be the first thing I'd look into getting rid of.
Could these just be containers instead? What are they storing?
nix store (15 GiB)
How large is your (I assume home-manager) closure? If this is 2-3 generations worth, that sounds about right.
system libraries (/usr is 22.5 GiB).
That's extremely large. Like, 2x of what you'd expect a typical system to have.
You should have a look at what's using all that space using your system package manager.
EDIT: ncdu says I've stored 129.1 TiB lol
If you're on btrfs and have a non-trivial subvolume setup, you can't just let ncdu loose on the root subvolume. You need to take a more principled approach.
For assessing your actual working size, you need to ignore snapshots for instance as those are mostly the same extents as your "working set".
You need to keep in mind that snapshots do themselves take up space too though, depending on how much you've deleted or written since taking the snapshot.
btdu is a great tool to analyse space usage of a non-trivial btrfs setup in a probabilistic fashion. It's not available in many distros but you have Nix and we have it of course ;)
Snapshots are the #1 most likely cause for your space usage woes. Any space usage that you cannot explain using your working set is probably caused by them.
Also: Are you using transparent compression? IME it can reduce space usage of data that is similar to typical Nix store contents by about half.
You can do it but I wouldn't recommend it for your use-case.
Caching is nice but only if the data that you need is actually cached. In the real world, this is unfortunately not always the case:
Data that you haven't used it for a while may be evicted. If you need something infrequently, it'll be extremely slow.
The cache layer doesn't know what is actually important to be cached and cannot make smart decisions; all it sees is IO operations on blocks. Therefore, not all data that is important to cache is actually cached.
Block-level caching solutions may only store some data in the cache where they (with their extremely limited view) think it's most beneficial. Bcache for instance skips the cache entirely if writing the data to the cache would be slower than the assumed speed of the backing storage and only caches IO operations below a certain size.
Having data that must be fast always stored on fast storage is the best.
Manually separating data that needs to be fast from data that doesn't is almost always better than relying on dumb caching that cannot know what data is the most beneficial to put or keep in the cache.
This brings us to the question: What are those 900GiB you store on your 1TiB drive?
That would be quite a lot if you only used the machine for regular desktop purposes, so clearly you're storing something else too.
You should look at that data and see what of it actually needs fast access speeds. If you store multimedia files (video, music, pictures etc.), those would be good candidates to instead store on a slower, more cost efficient storage medium.
You mentioned games which can be quite large these days. If you keep currently unplayed games around because you might play them again at some point in the future and don't want to sit through a large download when that point comes, you could also simply create a new games library on the secondary drive and move currently not played but "cached" games into that library. If you need it accessible it's right there immediately (albeit with slower loading times) and you can simply move the game back should you actively play it again.
You could even employ a hybrid approach where you carve out a small portion of your (then much emptier) fast storage to use for caching the slow storage. Just a few dozen GiB of SSD cache can make a huge difference in general HDD usability (e.g. browsing it) and 100-200G could accelerate a good bit of actual data too.
If I can't find something I can just add a quick !g to my already existing query and look it up on Google instead, which I've found rather convenient.
Yeah I used to do the same (but with !s).
It's much more convenient to just have good search results to begin with though. Kagi uses the Google index and a few others and you have your own filtering and ranking on top.
In the beginning I felt tempted to do !s a few times too but the results were always worse, so I quickly unlearned doing that.
Executing bangs is also a lot quicker with Kagi; DDG is kind of a slog.
Chances are that it doesn't work there either. What actually does the OC is the kernel; the GUIs merely write the desired values into the correct files in /sys.
Oh they've been getting worse for sure but Bing is still worse. I've used the Bing index via DuckDuckGo for years and it's quite bad.
I now use Kagi which uses both Google and Bing indices (among others) and it's much better and I think most of that is because the Google index is used.
I missed that; OP is from a Lemmy instance indeed.
I think it's the other way around then: those hashtags turn into actual hashtags when federated to the microblog fediverse. I verified this with mastodon. Only works in the title though because post bodies don't get federated in Lemmy for some reason.
If you talk about "a GUI for systemd", you obviously mean its most central and defining component which is the service manager. I'm going to assume you're arguing in bad faith from here on out because I consider that to be glaringly obvious.
systemd-boot still has no connection to systemd the service manager. It doesn't even run at the same time. Anything concerning it is part of the static system configuration, not runtime state.
udevd doesn't interact with it in any significant user-relevant way either and it too is mostly static system configuration state.
journald would be an obvious thing that you would want integrated into a systemd GUI but even that could theoretically be optional. Though it'd still be useful without, it would diminish the usefulness of the systemd GUI significantly IMHO.
It's also not disparate at all as it provides information on the same set of services that systemd manages and i.e. systemctl has journald integration too. You use the exact same identifiers.
As mentioned, those are entirely separate and even independent components.
Systemd (as in: pid1) only "manages" them insofar as that it controls their running processes just like any other service on your system.
systemd-boot doesn't interact with systemd at all; it's not even a Linux program.
The reason these components have "systemd" in their name is that these components are maintained by the same people as part of the greater systemd project. They have no further relation to systemd pid1 (the service manager).
Whoever told you otherwise milead you and likely had an agenda or was transitively mislead by someone who does. Please don't spread disinformation further.
Atemu @ Atemu @lemmy.ml Posts 63Comments 1,439Joined 5 yr. ago 
If this was over an hour, yes. Though you'd typically state it as 100W ;)