Interesting, whats your backup process, of you mind sharing?

> the Guardian has chosen to ...

No, the Guardian has chosen nothing, this is an OPINION piece by an external author, it has nothing to do with the Guardian staff. Learn the difference.

The Guardian (i.e. someone on its staff) chose to publish this opinion piece.

I spent 8 years of my life at a daily news organization, I know for a fact that reporters, editors, executives, and sometimes even the advertisers have a voice in what is published…whether opinion or not.

Maybe you should care to read it yourself:

> "... the board should request the resignation of ..."

So, ask him to voluntarily resign, not "make him", just as GP wrote.

Same here. I would love to go Linux exclusive though, but need to keep a mac around for data/file management, since Linux STILL doesnt support creation/provenance/birth time on any FS. It really sucks that linux is still so far behind on that compared to the two mainstream OS options, hope the kernel devs will change that someday.

> “No, water damage”

Bob should have used some of his Fuji 9, that fixes everything!

Lets hope this motivates a lot of them to invest in stuff like ground source heat pumps (where applicable/affordable)

Do they not have washing machines where you are?

Agreed!

Though I prefer this picture:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:20171007130915!Saab_Drake...

Reminds me of Apogees Raptor and similar fighter plane DOS games.

Yes, that's an even better picture! Austrian air-force version, right?

Yes, in some special livery in the colors of the austrian flag!

It might not be the fastest, but at least it supports setting/keeping file creation time - unlike the clusterf*ck we still have on basically all Linux filesystems unfortunately

You're blaming the wrong thing.

It's the Linux kernel that deliberately does not provide user land a way to change file creation times.

Meanwhile XNU/macOS does.

I agree with Scott, no need to use rsync - he should have used rclone instead! It can be easily installed in the package manager, and with 4 threads (or multiples of 4) it fully uses/saturates the 4 1GbE links.

Also a hint for anyone planning something similar: if you use Synologys SHR format (based on mdraid+btrfs) and your new destination supports or uses BTRFS too, you can just btrfs send your whole pool to the new NAS!

(Since its a single process it wont saturate any LAG though)

I tried that before and ran into issues due to the fact that synology's btrfs implementation has quite a few patches. I forgot exactly what issues I had, just ymmv.

The fact that synology's btrfs is incompatible with a normal linux distribution and that the official instructions from synology for reading it is to use an older kernel together with ubuntu 16.04 lts convinced me to switch away from synology.

I believe that Ubiquiti advertises that they use zfs.