Yup, *arrs actually warn you about that
Yeah they’re just fairly vague about what you need to do for hard linking to work IMO. I just had the same shared folder that all containers pointed towards for their data directory, but since the directory inside the qbit and *arr containers didn’t have the exact same name and path, hard linking didn’t work.
If youre using docker just remember to make sure the storage volumes of the containers are the same path (not just physical drive) as the torrent clients, otherwise it can’t hardlink and just defaults to copying. I have about 8tb of redundant data before I figured out why my drives were filling so fast, that I haven’t gotten around to fixing
If you only leech and you’re not a hoarder, it really doesn’t require much. For most people there’s not really any need to store every single piece of media they’ve ever consumed or hope to consume…some day…maybe. Or setup tools to automate their uncontrollable hoarding.
If you live in a high energy cost area the ROI on going SSD can be as low as 3-4 years
~$800 on two 8tb SSDs
2 x 8tb HDDs is roughly $200USD
I don’t know what kind of electricity prices you’re paying, but to hit a 3 year ROI on your SSDs, you’re paying at least $2.2USD/kWh, assuming the full 15W (232kWh/year total) consumption of the HDDs and assuming negligible power consumption from the SSDs.
Edit2: and to be fair I did take refurb HDD price. a refurb SSD is around $300 USD for 8tb, bringing the minimum power cost per kWh down to ~$1.7USD/kWh for a 3 year ROI.
deleted by creator
Why not just run the torrenting stack behind the VPN in a separate docker container? Then the rest of your media server is completely unaffected by the VPN and no need for any split tunneling.
due to some technical considerations I don’t like to run a VPN on my media server
What’s the reasons against using a VPN here?
I use hard linking to manage my library. It’s far from ideal, because the actual files are still stored in the jumbled shit show of files that is my downloads folder. But at least it let’s me browse an ordered library of file names.
Should you really be concerned about a system that can be physically ruined by malware? I would say definitely yes…
Of course there’s a financial reason, they’ve probably done a cost/benefit analysis and decided that it’s financially better to screw over those customers than to spend money fixing it. But that’s exactly the issue!
I think what most people disagree with, is that the active choice from AMD to not fix a very fixable issue, is a choice they know leaves customers is a seriously bad position. This is something they choose to do to their customers, because they could just as well choose to help them.
what I meant was that apparently only compromised systems are vulnerable to this defect.
That is not correct. Any system where this vulnerability is not patched out by AMD (which is all of gen 1, 2 and 3 CPUs) is left permanently vulnerable, regardless of whether or not they already are compromised. So if your PC is compromised in a few months for some reason, instead of being able to recover with a reinstall of your OS, your HW is now permanently compromised and would need to be thrown out…just because AMD didn’t want to patch this.
Ryzen 3000 series CPUs are still sold as new, I even bought one six months ago, they’re no where near being classified as “old”, they’re hardly 5 years old. And this is not only an issue for already infected systems because uninfected systems will intentionally be left vulnerable.
No they are just choosing not to roll out the fix to a known issue, which is screwing customers over on purpose (to increase profits). It’s not a matter of goodwill, they sold a product that then turned out to have a massive security flaw, and now they don’t want to fix even though they absolutely could.
They are 100% not patching old chips intentionally by not allocating resources to it. It’s a conscious choice made by the company, it is very much “on purpose”.
I bought a couple of 12tb “used” drives from servershop24.de, thay all had less than 150h of runtime.
Gee officer, we dun’ kno’ nothin’ 'bout no hacking stuff sir…
Maybe not, but you and I definitely dont, so let’s stick to what they’re actually saying instead of guessing.
That’s not a firewall though, which is what OP mentions.
The path inside the containers to where you download your torrents, so the path after the “:”, has to be exactly the same on both your torrent container and your *arr containers
Example below won’t work with hard linking
Radar:
Qbit:
But this will work
Radar:
Qbit: