krondor

5 ms·

1.
by krondor 6y ago
Excellent, not sure what I missed before, but I have aptx and aac now! A good step in the right direction. Still would love LDAC and/or Aptx HD of course in the long run.
2.
by krondor 6y ago
Thanks, it looks similar to what I've tried so far. I'll give it another run through and see if I missed something.
3.
by krondor 6y ago
No, I meant AAC. The XM3s do not seem to negotiate AAC over BT on OSX. They fall back to SBC and obviously sound bad. AAC would be a step up, but AptX HD or LDAC would be ideal. They work fine in my case on both iPhone and Android. So as I
4.
by krondor 6y ago
I have never been able to get it to negotiate AAC on OSX, though technically it does support it. iPhone works fine. Even still LDAC seems superior from my comparison to my Android and iPhone audio. See this thread for some discussion on it
5.
by krondor 6y ago
Actually those Sony headphones are one of the reasons I am interested in Linux instead of OSX. LDAC support is not present on OSX, but it is for Linux. It makes a huge difference in audio quality over bluetooth in my experience. *edit: Ju
6.
by krondor 10y ago
This is not so different actually, and has been done in the past by other auto manufacturers (some may even still be doing this today). The Ford River Rouge plant is the best example I can think of with literal Iron Ore going in one side a
7.
by krondor 10y ago
I'm not sure about FreeNAS, but I do want to point out this is possible in the btrfs filesystem (sharded raid across drives). I'm not aware of any FreeNAS equivalents though utilizing it, but rolling your own is certainly an opti
8.
by krondor 10y ago
Thank you, this was a great reply. Reading the discussions have been interesting.
9.
by krondor 10y ago
Canonical is doing so anyway and it seems they have a legal disagreement on the interpretation of the law with the Software Freedom Conservancy. IANAL so I have no clue what is technically correct, but the fact is that Ubuntu is distributin
10.
by krondor 10y ago
Yes, apologies, I did mean lzo. zlib seemed perhaps too much on the CPU side of the IO/CPU calculation. I am excited to see how btrfs snappy and lz4 support compares when they are added, however. To the point of lzo performance though
11.
by krondor 10y ago
Btrfs is not beta, see the discussion re: maturity below. ZFS is an excellent filesystem, btrfs is an excellent filesystem. There is room for both excellent options for users.
12.
by krondor 10y ago
I believe you're misunderstanding the problems that occur on a cow filesystem. In fact btrfs already has an overcommit disk buffer, and is already doing many ENOSPACE handling tricks. Have a look; https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.
13.
by krondor 10y ago
I'm going to disagree with you re: compression. Compression at the FS layer brings a lot of benefits, and generally most workloads are IO constrained not CPU constrained. Compression at the FS improves IO at the expense of CPU. Hadoo
14.
by krondor 10y ago
You are correct that btrfs and ZFS are sensitive to low disk space. This is also related to how cow filesystems function, they need that free space to commit writes and for snapshots because they, by nature, don't overwrite blocks. Se
15.
by krondor 10y ago
As zanny said, cow presents an issue for transactional workloads (databases, vm images, etc...) as each write fragments the file, by nature of the process of cow. btrfs can handle database workloads but you have to disable cow for them (whi
16.
by krondor 10y ago
That seems ill advised, one of the benefits of btrfs is it obviates the need for lvm and mdadm. I guess in your case you have a more stable raid5/6 opportunity, but you're losing many of the raid benefits present in btrfs natively
17.
by krondor 10y ago
ZFS is in Ubuntu 16.04 without a PPA, by the way.
18.
by krondor 10y ago
Yes, thanks for catching that, I've edited the parent. As you can tell I'm not that strong on ZFS other than what I've learned in some small tinkering and discussion with others.
19.
by krondor 10y ago
Agreed, my workload is probably not representative of a small organization or user. I absolutely leverage resiliency in software, distributed computing, and mitigate single points of failure, etc... This is a good point. Now, I do think th
20.
by krondor 10y ago
I believe on Ubuntu 16.04 ZFS is not using dkms. You'd want to check, because I'm not currently running it, but that's what I have been told.
21.
by krondor 10y ago
That's a fair point. I guess we can debate what 'mature' means. In development since 2007, stable since 2014. ZFS, in development since 2001 (correction I erroneously listed 2005 earlier), stable since 2006 (or at least Sol
22.
by krondor 10y ago
btrfs is most certainly not dead. I actually think it's really gaining traction presently. It only became stable near Ubuntu 14.04 or so, and it takes people awhile (understandably) to warm up to a new filesystem. It's great to
23.
by krondor 10y ago
Interesting findings. I'm curious also to see how fixed width stripes change the performance profile in btrfs (presently not supported). To be clear though, the raid5/6 write hole only applies to power failures with data in flig
24.
by krondor 10y ago
btrfs is stable as of kernel 3.14 or so. The features in btrfs that are unstable at this point are raid56 (write hole on power failure risk), autodefrag (and mainly just with high transaction files like vm images and databases), and ext34&
25.
by krondor 12y ago
Because that doesn't happen outside of the OSS world?
26.
by krondor 13y ago
These lights FTA are OEM, though a lot of tuner cars and lifted trucks aren't I suppose.
27.
by krondor 13y ago
I haven't looked in awhile, but ClamAV actually did very well in some third party virus tests. You shouldn't need a Linux specific product. Good AV systems detect viruses for multiple platforms irregardless of the host performin
28.
I Wish Nest Did More Than Thermostats(jorgecastro.org)
46 points by krondor 13y ago|52 comments
29.
by krondor 15y ago
I moved my blog to it some time ago and it's been excellent so far. I do kind of think this is out of scope for GitHub, and will probably move to S3 at some point. I did switch from Jekyll to Octopress though (Octopress is a nice framework
30.
by krondor 15y ago
Just a few nitpicks; Drupal does have wysiwyg implemented as a module http://drupal.org/project/wysiwyg (actually several competing editors are possible), Drupal also can do automated updates, though I wouldn't advise it. Drush works for

More ›