Comment on [deleted]
JGrffn@lemmy.world 4 weeks agoWait so you built a pool using removable drives, and was surprised it didn’t work? Lmao
That’s like being angry that a car wash physically hurt you because you drove in on a bike, then using a hose on your bike and claiming that the hose is better than the car wash.
Zfs is a low level system meant for pcie or sata, not USB, which is many layers above sata & pcie. Rsync was the right choice for this scenario since it’s a higher level program which doesn’t care about anything other than just the data and will work over USB, Ethernet, wifi, etc., but you gotta understand why it was the right choice instead of just throwing shade at one of the most robust filesystems out there just because it wasn’t designed for your specific usecase.
Flamekebab@piefed.social 4 weeks ago
I was told a tool was a resilient approach to drive management.
It wasn’t, outside of a very specific set of circumstances.
Your analogy not only makes no sense but is exactly why I’m hostile about this. I’m not an expert at the specific limitations of a niche hard disk technology is, I must be a fucking moron or something, and ridicule is a clearly an appropriate reaction.
My idea of a useful tool for dealing with hard disks is not one that loses its shit when a hard disk is temporarily disconnected.
That is not a ridiculous assumption. If that’s an issue then that should be made abundantly clear.
I assigned drives based on serial number and passed them through to TrueNAS and it couldn’t handle that reliably. I do not think I was asking for the moon on a stick.
The USB interface is a temporary measure, I was going to move the disks to an internal setup after testing but if it can’t handle something that basic then like fuck am I trusting it with something like migrating from USB SATA to internal SATA.
If I need both disks to access mirrored data then it’s as useful as a chocolate teapot.