No.119795
had a blackout in the middle of the night but my uninterruptible power supply did its job w00t w00t
No.119835
>>119832>>119834The fact that you posted only a single shoe makes me uncomfortable. Where is the other shoe?
No.119838
nvidia drivers messed up as soon as it detected two cards. I forget if I've had this issue in the past, but reinstalling drivers before I can test
No.119843
how strange... even with the other GPU unpowered it still can't hit my window10 numbers
No.119844
>>118636even if I compare all my other numbers, my best benchmarks were on windows10
>>119841 Is it possible that windows11 is just outright garbage?
No.119845
My only conclusion is that I'm lacking in RAM to run windows11 properly, but it begs the question... why windows 11?
No.119846
>>119845why not mwahahahaha
No.119847
>>119842Windows 11 should have a negligible difference in performance. The only explanation I can think of for this big of a discrepency is that the GPU driver was not actually loaded and you were instead using integrated graphics for that test.
No.119848
>>119847That's not a reasonable assumption. I did a restart without my second GPU and a restart with both GPU and both the framerates were ~90 which is far worse than what I had on windows10
No.119849
>>119848Skill issue then.
No.119850
>>119849you are a miicrosoft employee
No.119852
I'll try changing drivers with only the RTX at some point when I install arch onto my other computer
No.119853
Until then, Microsoft is gimping my computer, probably because I don't have enough DRAM anymoore
No.119894
>>119836holy what the CAT
No.120081
er, apparently the nvme slots of my motherboard came with something called thermal pads and I thought it was just some random crap they put onto it for protection... well, I guess I didn't need them...
No.120082
covered in cathair and dust anyways
No.120352
>>120350If it's something that you want to preserve for a long time, but might not necessarily need to access very often, the answer is cold storage. Basically, that means taking making a backup of those files and then putting them onto a drive or a disc. If you really care about them you would make two copies: one to keep at home, and another "off-site", to store somewhere like a bank safety deposit box.
If you need to access the files with some regularity, the answer is generally a NAS. There's NAS manufacturers if you want something put-together. Synology and QNAP are the two leading brands in that area. You don't need to go out and buy a custom system though. If you want to, you can just build a budget PC and put drives into it, and then install a NAS management OS like TrueNAS or Unraid. That said, "RAID is not a backup!". It's a system for fault tolerance so a single or multiple drive failures without losing all of the data. Basically, you would select the RAID level that is most suitable for your level of fault tolerance (how much you care about the data), how much performance you want, and how much you care about storage efficiency. You can't really have all three. RAID0 is no fault tolerance, high speed, and high storage efficiency. RAID1 is high fault tolerance, and high speed, but poor storage efficiency. RAID5 is decent fault tolerance, but poorer speed, and decent storage efficiency. RAID6 is better fault tolerance, but poorer speed, and worsened storage efficiency. There's also RAIDz, which is essentially the same RAID levels, but using the ZFS filesystem on something like TrueNAS. RAIDz1 is RAID1, RAIDz2 is RAID5, and RAIDz3 is RAID6.
No.120354
>>120350for this company server I set up it has 2TB of RAID5(so 3 960GB drives) and backups of the 2TB are made onto a 2TB flash drive plugged into the server. I believe it has cloud backups as well to azure.
No.120356
so anyways, to set up software RAID5 I think you can probably get it to copy your existing data into the array through some steps.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/how-to-set-up-raid-windows-10,36783.htmlFor 64TB you need 32TB*3 to get RAID5. If one of the drive fails the others will still function but your computer won't go to operating system without recovery. Or Windows should tell you a drive failed. Never had to deal with it
No.120359
from the looks of it it's a major hastle to go from a No-RAID(this is different from RAID0 btw) setup into RAID5.
So you might consider a service like dropbox, or if you're afraid of ToS violations then an NAS is a pretty cool option, but you could just plug an external harddrive into a random computer you have and setup network uploads into it. In any case, to get automatic drive fail saftey then you'll need a way to put all your data onto an empty space and reupload it.
No.120364
actually, wtf are you even talking about with wanting 64TB of HDD... we're going to have to start going into obscure sorts of RAID configurations if you want that to even be possible with current hardware limitations. Most practical is going to be 44TB from 3x 22TB on RAID5
https://www.newegg.ca/seagate-ironwolf-pro-st22000nt001-22tb/p/N82E16822185096?Item=N82E16822185096 No.120368
>>120364Larger hard drives are more failure prone, and take much longer to recover if one fails. It's better to use smaller hard drives and more of them. Personally, I think 12TB is probably the sweet spot.
No.120369
>>120359how do you setup network uploads? i have a NAS with some space and I was thinking of setting up a cron job that calls rsync on the folders i care about preserving but thats pretty jury-rigged
No.120370
>>120369I imagine there are probably some tools that behave like OneDrive or Dropbox, either foss or premium.
What I do with my projects is have it upload to a server every time I restart
No.120371
With a cron task that is. You might FTP but I just ssh
No.120570
>>120364https://www.amazon.com/Western-Digital-Black-Performance-Internal/dp/B08MKJPFZ7/How does that drive differ from this one? I know WD Black is pretty good from memory and seagate had a bad rep at one point for dying drives.
No.120573
>>120571Didn't even know about this, thanks for the heads up Anon.
No.123606
gotten pretty fast at reinstalling my programs after a format...
No.123611
WHAT THE FUCK MICROSOFT
WHY AM I GETTING 2X THE FRAMERATE ON WINDOWS10???
No.123619
hm, there's AA on the win11 test for some reason
No.123621
I'm not sure why windows 11's benchmark is on AA4x but Win10's isn't. That accounts for the framerate weirdness.
I apparently missed that because it's in my older screenshots too
>>118626 >>119842