I'll preface that I'm no raid expert, just a nerd that uses it occasionally.
The main benefit of most raid configurations is the redundancy they provide. If you lose one drive, you do not lose any data. It's kinda obvious how you can have 1:1 redundancy, you just have an exact copy of the drive. But there are ways to split data into three chunks so that you can rebuild the data from any two chunks, and 5 chunks so that you can loose and two chunks. Truly understand how raid does this could easily be an entire college course.
Raid 0 is the exception. All it does is "join together" a bunch of drives into one disk. And if you lose an individual disk you likely will lose most of your data.
Another big difference is read/write speed. From my understanding, every raid configuration is slower to read and write than if you were using a single drive. Each raid configuration is varying levels of slower than the "base speed"
I typically use raid 5 or 6, since that gives some redundancy, but I can keep most of my total storage space.
The main thing in all of this is to keep an eye on drive health. If you lose more drives than your array can handle, all of your data is gone. From my understanding, there is no easy way to get the data off a broken raid array.
Yeah, I'd rather not if he talks like he writes. Again, I am fully on board with his message, but he writes like someone who doesn't know how to have a conversation with another person.
This writer seems like a proper neck beard. I 100% agree with most of what they say, but this feels like it's straight out of 4chann
Edit: I read a few other articles of his and watch a few of his videos/interviews. This article is an extreme side of him apparently. I still think he is extremely socially awkward, he can't hold eye contact for longer than a millisecond and struggles to answer questions in less than twenty words.
I do fully agree with almost everything I've heard him say. I just don't like the way he says it.
I think those make sense as deviations. I've heard "my sequel" but you're absolutely right about postgresql.
The name is kinda irrelevant like hard vs soft g in gif. People know what you mean when you say either.
But in that same vein, the creator of the "graphics interchange format" says the pronunciation is soft g, but basically everyone says hard g... So "official" pronunciation is kinda irrelevant.
I don't judge anyone who uses whichever term they want, but I've just noticed the general trend in my smallish interaction bubble.
The only people I know who actually call it ess queue ell are either too new to know the "sequel" pronunciation, or the type of person you generally smell before you see.
I'd double check that language you need isn't already on iPhone. They've added pretty much every language spoken by at least 100k people.
iPhone is really the only choice for the computer/smartphone illiterate. You can't easily put the device in an unrecognizable state, you can't install a launcher that drastically changes the GUI from the app store. iPhone justifiably gets tons of shit, but this is the exact use case it's designed for. They also have really good accessibility features, and they actually work in apps.
Android has tons of benefits, and I've had only android for the last 14 years. I think if you are planning on removing the settings app all together, you know it's not a great choice for them.
I would personally bet a full paycheck that in two years, most of these trucks have hauled no more than like a few pieces of furniture, a couple 2x4s, and maybe some bags of potting soil or mulch.
Definitely justifies daily driving a 7000lb, bullet proof, pedestrian slicer.
If you cook 300 meals per year, you're not the primary demographic of McDonald's, at least for my local one. Most people I know who eat there, eat there very regularly.... Like multiple times per week.
I personally think it's that people lack the time, motivation, and/or knowledge to cook themselves. I can make a cheeseburger and fries at home for about $3-5 in about thirty minutes, including cleanup. Compared to a $15 meal, it's roughly the equivalent of saving $20/h.
Another issue could be home size is way down. If you live alone, you can't buy one hamburger bun, you have to buy 8. You can't buy a quarter pound of ground beef, minimum package size is usually 1 lb. If you buy the material to cook one meal, you're committing to cook three to seven more within the next 10 days. So you've signed up for leftovers or up to four hours of cooking.
It really depends on what you buy. Some stuff is crazy cheap, others are pretty much the same price. If you're buying a single shirt from Sam's you're probably better off going to Walmart. Always check the per-unit price, and only buy what you're sure you will use. My favorite brand of yogurt is cheaper per unit than the great value brand at Walmart, and is almost 50% lower compared to buying it in packs of 4... But it takes up half a shelf in the fridge. But generally meat is just as expensive at Walmart/Kroger, often you can get it cheaper on sale at Walmart/Kroger than you can get at Sam's, and it's already in packages that you can just toss in a freezer.
Also, I don't know if Costco has it, but the Sam's app lets you scan and pay with your phone, so there's no lines for checkout or anything. That doesn't work to use the gift card trick though.
This is a good tool for visualizing your raid needs from your capacity and total number of drives.
https://www.seagate.com/products/nas-drives/raid-calculator/
I'll preface that I'm no raid expert, just a nerd that uses it occasionally.
The main benefit of most raid configurations is the redundancy they provide. If you lose one drive, you do not lose any data. It's kinda obvious how you can have 1:1 redundancy, you just have an exact copy of the drive. But there are ways to split data into three chunks so that you can rebuild the data from any two chunks, and 5 chunks so that you can loose and two chunks. Truly understand how raid does this could easily be an entire college course.
Raid 0 is the exception. All it does is "join together" a bunch of drives into one disk. And if you lose an individual disk you likely will lose most of your data.
Another big difference is read/write speed. From my understanding, every raid configuration is slower to read and write than if you were using a single drive. Each raid configuration is varying levels of slower than the "base speed"
I typically use raid 5 or 6, since that gives some redundancy, but I can keep most of my total storage space.
The main thing in all of this is to keep an eye on drive health. If you lose more drives than your array can handle, all of your data is gone. From my understanding, there is no easy way to get the data off a broken raid array.