Onomatopoeia

Weird - I just got a notification about v2.09 the other day, and that was the only version listed in F-Droid (or wherever I went to get it for a new phone, haha).

I had to grab the version I keep at home on my server, because there are significant changes in 2.09 and I have numerous devices using it so didn't want to go changing right now.

I'd look at getting a used SFF (Small Form Factor) desktop for a LOT less than that Ugreen. I paid less than $50 for mine - at that price I can run a second one when I'm ready.

I'm currently running an old Dell SFF as my server, I've had Proxmox on it with 5 drives internally (2.5") with the OS on the NVME.

Initially it had 4GB of ram and ran Proxmox with ZFS just fine (and those drives were various ages and sizes).

It idles at 18w, not much more than the 12w my Pi Zero W idled at, but way more powerful and capable.

One drive failure means an array is degraded until resilvering finishes (unless you have hot spare, at least then the array isn't degraded and silvering a new drive isn't as risky).

Resilvering is an intensive process that can push other drives to fail.

I have a ZFS system that takes the better part if a day (24 hours) to resilver a 4TB drive in an 8TB five-drive array (single parity) that's about 70% full. When uts resilvering I have to be confident my other data stores don't fail (I have the data locally on 2 other drives and a cloud backup).

"Two in RAID" only means 2 when the arrays on on different systems and the replication isn't instant. Otherwise it only protects against hardware failures and not against you fucking up (ask me how I know...).

If the arrays are on 2 separate systems in the same place, they'll protect against independent hardware failures without a common cause (a drive dies, etc), but not against common threats like fire or electrical spikes.

Also, how long does it take to return one of those systems to fully functioning with all the data of the other? This is a risk all of us seem to overlook at times.

If you're storing "critical data", you want to look at redundancy (ie backup) and not expecting a single store to not have issues. Drives will fail, and if they fail in a RAID the entire store is at risk until the array is restored. If you don't have hot spares it's at even more risk while it's rebuilding. ZFS is less sensitive to this than traditional RAID, but even it can't magically restore data from thin air.

The typical recommendation for backup is 3-2-1 or a variation: 3 backups on 2 types of media (local/remote/cloud suffices) at least 1 off-site..

The link above discusses the 3-2-1-1-0 which I think is good to understand as 0 refers to verified backups. Unverified backups are no backups at all. It's not unusual in the SMB space to do a test restore of a percentage of files monthly (Enterprise has entire teams and automation around testing).

Yes, this dirt is "attached to outside dirt".

This is the same ground that's under all of the foundation. There'd be no reason to bring in dirt to put on top of concrete that's been poured. Which is why this is so confusing - there's no reason I can think of for leaving this open and installing a wood floor rather than being finished with concrete like the rest. This just leaves an opportunity for water intrusion.

If you're down to clay, I'd just fill with gravel (and insulation, as mentioned by someone else) and pour concrete - this is the best approach in my opinion. Otherwise it will always be a moisture problem.

You could extend the clean out to be just above your finished floor level.

Alternatively, level the concrete to just barely below the clean out and install a false floor using wood. Then you've sealed the floor, left the clean out, and the false floor provides an even surface without the clean out being in the way (it would be under the false floor).

Right?

I don't take my iPad or phone into the shop. Harder to work with, expensive and easy to break.

Works better to print out a diagram (maybe even expanded to multiple pages) and tack it up in the wall.

I recently had to mail a certified doc to an organization that simply can't afford to migrate to digital - they only need these kinds of docs a few times a year.

Are you going to pay to develop the systems for them, and perform all the testing, training, and manage the backup for them?

Right. You don't know what you're talking about.

It's both, since the 90's. I worked in a print shop, the commercial copiers of the time (which are the same tech as printers) would copy a bill, but the colors would never be right, though photos were flawless.

I'm not providing a source - this was all well-known by the mid-90's, some of us were there and experimented to try to get around it.

The steg is for traceability, not to prevent duplication of currency. It's so you can show that a particular doc came from a specific printer. This has uses far beyond currency.

Not that I like it, it's just not news.

And this was well known in the mid-90's, I guess OP just found out.

Like who the hell built that with wood right on dirt?

That took more effort than just finishing that area with concrete like the rest of the floor.

Sometimes I just don't get how builders think.

Pulaski was in the original - she tried to take over Kirk's body to be captain.