Eskating cyclist, gamer and enjoyer of anime. Probably an artist. Also I code sometimes, pretty much just to mod titanfall 2 tho.

Introverted, yet I enjoy discussion to a fault.

  • 34 Posts
  • 705 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 13th, 2023

help-circle


    1. There is no “special” benefit to a pre-built NAS. They have convenient software but there is nothing exceptional about them. They’re just computers with storage drive slots. Using a bunch of external drives via a USB hub would be fine. But is that your only expansion option on the system you have? Access speeds via USB, especially if using a hub, won’t be ideal. It’ll certainly work, though. You can also get enclosures to put full size HDDs in, which can connect to an existing system.

    2. RAID is still the way to go, but since you don’t need much storage, I’d start with RAID 1, not 5. 5 will require a rebuild with a new drive if something goes wrong, while RAID 1 will work with 2 drives and give you complete mirroring. Since you intend to have a “local” backup copy anyway, why not just skip that and use RAID 1? It’s literally the same thing, except it’ll actually provide uptime in case of failure, unlike a backup drive or raid 5.

    3. So RAID 5 plus a local backup, plus another offsite? This is overkill IMO. (Not the offsite backup that’s good. But raid+local copy. Just use two drives and mirror them using whatever you prefer.) In your place, I think I’d go with BTRFS in raid1c2 mode. This is like raid1, in that with two drives, you only get the capacity of one drive. But, the “c2” means that each data block is mirrored to two drives. With more than two drives, you can expand storage. (With three 2TB drives you’d get 3TB) You don’t get as much available storage as with raid5, but you get expandability, which you normally don’t with raid1. And you get uptime in case of failure without an array rebuild (though for this you must mount the volume with the “degraded” option, unlike actual raid using mdadm). You also get filesystem snapshots.

    4. You intend to do this manually? That is fine. My current solution is a second NAS at my dad’s home, to which my system is backed up daily using Kopia. Kopia deduplicates and compresses the backups, efficiently keeping versions up to two years back. The simplest version of this would be a router that can host an FTP server using an external drive in its usb port. This way you could automate off-site backup and have it happen more frequently. Asus routers can do this, and even come with free dynamic DNS and automatic https with letsenrypt. You literally just plug it into WAN somewhere, and you’ll be able to back up to it over the internet.


    Finally, just some mentions.

    MDADM, is what you’d use to create a software RAID array.

    BTRFS has built-in multi-device storage, of which only single, raid0, and raid1 are stable. Do not use the raid5 and 6 modes. While named raid, the modes differ from actual raid. BTRFS is able to convert from one mode to another, and can add drives in any mode (though will need to “balance” the drives after changes, to make additional capacity available). It is also able to evict drives. It will not auto-mount a volume after drive failure, and requires the “degraded” option be added.

    Mergerfs can be used to merge filesystems to expand storage non-destructively. It is able to arbitrarily combine volumes of any type, to combine their capacity. This way, it can for example be used to expand a raid1 array by combining it with a single disk, or another raid1 array, or whatever else. This can be done temporarily, as the combined volume can also be disassembled non-destructively, with each file simply remaining on whatever drive they were on.
















  • Oh I’m glad Silent Hill is back.

    But horror isn’t CoD. I will never be that big. But Konami thinks it can be, and will either sacrifice the quality of the games in order to appeal to a wider audience, or keep the games as scary as they are, and fail to meet their own unrealistic expectations.

    The scariness of the games is an additional complication that AAA publishers don’t seem to get.

    A bad Call of Duty still lets you click heads and scream slurs in a match lobby.

    But make a horror game that isn’t scary? Or even the wrong amount, or type of scary? Complete failure.

    If you target hardcore horror fans, your game has to be good enough to scare them, and you’ll never be able to sell to everyone. And if you can’t scare the hardcore fans, you need to be interesting enough for the casual fans to buy in. Getting both is near impossible, which is why indies do so well in the genre. It’s REALLY hard to make horror for everyone. Usually, a horror game interests only a subset of gamers.

    And when you have a franchise, every new game needs to figure out how to scare people who have played the previous games. Or else interest them in other ways.

    Horror is really easy to overplay. If your game is too long, the scares stop working because the player gets used to them. If sequels just do the same thing as the last game, entire games can stop being effective. And once you start trying to reinvent things every game, they can end up losing their identity (see RE5 and 6).

    Doing this every 12 months? Just no.

    Resident Evil is an excellent example. Capcom has tried and failed to increase release frequency, but titles that actually sell are about two or three years apart no matter what they seem to do. And that is WITH their new formula of using two completely different styles to reduce the sameness of the titles.

    If Konami wants to release more games, they should tap their other IPs, not oversaturate the already crowded horror genre even more.