Selfhosted

60451 readers

637 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Detailed Rules Post

Be civil.
No spam.
Posts are to be related to self-hosting.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.
Submission headline should match the article title.
No trolling.
Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details.

Resources:

selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
awesome-selfhosted software
awesome-sysadmin resources
Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

curbstickle@anarchist.nexus

curbstickle_lw@lemmy.world

Raidz2 or btrfs for important document storage? (piefed.blahaj.zone)

submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

41 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I currently have a secondary pool (with raidz2) that I was originally going to use for my important documents, such as storage for Paperless-ngx, as raidz offers corruption detection and repair. The pool is encrypted.

However, I'm concerned about rebuild times (it's a pool of 4 22TB drives). Is btrfs a better choice for this use case, or should I just go with raidz like I originally planned?

Edit: I should have mentioned that I already have 4-3-2 backups configured - I'm primarily interested in the "self-healing" aspect of ZFS so that I don't have to recover from backups unless necessary, and to resolve corruption on the fly without me having to notice that a file is corrupt.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] meltedcheese@c.im 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

@Zeoic You are both correct. Chess was chosen as an early problem domain for work on first-order logic-based programming. That certainly was considered AI. People really interested in chess later abandoned logic programming in favor of brute-force, highly parallel special purpose hardware. That was not AI.

“Expert systems” (I hate that term) are application area of “Pattern-Directed Inference Systems” (PDIS). Rule-based systems are just one type of PDIS. For example, “Constraint Satisfaction” is another powerful AI technique often used in resource optimization and scheduling systems.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

You are both correct That certainly was considered AI.

Notice my use of past tense as well as Zeoic use of past tense. I said chess was AI as you stated. Zeoic denied that chess was ever AI.