Bout to overtake Windows with this one!

Well, ithe correct way would be to create a new container image using your current image as the base and executing your commands, you then need to rebuild that image when the base image is updated.

I think you can use volumes or mounts to add signal files.

They also say this:

In the absence of relevant standards and until the publication of the references of the relevant harmonised standards in the Official Journal of the European Union, the transitional testing methods set out in Annex IVa, or other reliable, accurate and reproducible methods, which take into account the generally recognised state-of-the-art methods, shall be used.

So I remain hopeful.

Apparently not

the new labels is tested using the same software used by many tech reviewers: SmartViser. This French automation company works with labs and manufacturers to simulate real-world usage. So now, the battery performance you see on the label is based on consistent, lab-tested data, not just marketing claims.

Source

Not sure how to go about marketing that in our current disposable society, though.

Ditto. The most likely solution would be EU regulations forcing longer battery life/better battery safety. Maybe the new law for replaceable batteries in smartphones could be enough, it includes a rating on charging cycles which could be the new “muh number is bigger!”

Why would they? AFAIK it’s less power density for safety gain - which is hard to market. The only way I see it happening is if we find a safer and denser storage medium or if laws force safer batteries.

All of them

Internet Explorer meme bout to be replaced by just rendered on my 8gb card

Any thoughts or recommendations?

And you can even export it there.

Did you upgrade to the latest bios version?

Factory reset the bios?

Check for option pins on the motherboard?

How did brazzite install with secure boot turned on?

The problem is that I want failover to work if a site goes offline, this happens quite a bit with private ISP where I live and instead of waiting for the connection to be restored my idea was that kubernetes would see the failed node and replace it.

Most data will be transfered locally (with node affinity) and only on failure would the pods spread out. The problem that remained in this was storage which is why I’m here looking for options.

Thanks for the info!

I’ll try Rook-Ceph, Ceph has been recommended quite a lot now, but my nvme drives sadly don’t have PLP. Afaict that should still work because not all nodes will face power loss at the same time.

I’d rather start with the hardware I have and upgrade as necessary, backups are always running for emergency cases and I can’t afford to replace all hard drives.

I’ll join Home Operations and see what infos I can find

It’s fine if the bottleneck is upload/download speed, there’s no easy way around that.
The other problems like high latency or using more bandwith than is required are more my fear. Maybe local read cache or stuff like that can be a solution too but that’s why I’m asking for what is in use and what works vs what is better reserved for dedicated networks.

Ceph (and longhorn) want “10 Gbps network bandwidth between nodes” while I’ll have around 1gbit between nodes, or even lower.

What’s your experience with Garage?

I heard that ceph lives and dies with the network hardware. Is a slow internet connection even usable when the docs want 10 gbit/s networking between nodes?

They both support k8s, juicefs with either just a hostpath (not what i’d use) or the JuiceFS CSI Driver. Linstore has an operator which uses drbd and provides it too.

If you know of storage classes which are useful for this deployment (or just ones you want to talk about in general) then go on. From what I’m seeing in this thread I’ll probably have to deploy all options that seem reasonable and test them myself anyways.

Well, if that is the case then I will have to try them all but I’m hoping at least general behaviour would be similar to others so that I can start with a good option.

I want the failover to work in case of internet or power outage, not local cluster node failure. Multiple clusters would make configuration and failover across locations difficult or am I wrong?