It is pretty clear that you have less of an inclination against Seagate than my experience dictates me to. Stats can be twisted to tell anything, and my twist on what I’m seeing tells me to steer away from Seagate; your interpretation can most certainly differ.
AFR is a percentage, 1 drive from a pool of 10 means 10%, 5 drives from 100 means 5%; so with regards to your point that they don’t have much WD drives, if they don’t have much WD, then each fail is even more detrimental on the chart, therefore making the data even more impactful. The data also showed the average across all manufactures and you can see clearly Seagate being consistently above the average quarter over quarter. The failure rate is annualized, so age of drive is also factored into the consideration.
When there’s a clear trend of higher failure rate represented as a percentage, I’m not going to volunteer my data, NAS or otherwise, as tribute to brand loyalty from a manufacture that’s gone downhill from the decades past.
Way back when SSD were prohibitively expensive for poor student me way back when, they came up with Momentus XT; I don’t know if they were the first hybrid HDD/SSD, but it was my first foray into flash storage. I had the earlier version with controller such that should the flash memory dies, I’d still have access to the HDD.
It, was, glorious…
I hear you. The brand is really not what we remembered them to be.
WD has been treating me well, but the most recent batch had been hgst he10 from server part deals from a couple years back so I can’t comment on the more recent drives.
Just don’t buy Seagate. Their drives consistently have the highest annualized failure rate on Backblaze reports ( https://www.backblaze.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/6-AFR-by-Manufacturer.png ), and is consistent with my experience in small anecdotal sample of roughly 30 drives. This results in a ripple effect where the failed drive adds more work to the other drives (array rebuild after replacement), thereby increasing their risk of failing, too.
8B parameter tag is the distilled llama 3.1 model, which should be great for general writing. 7B is distilled qwen 2.5 math, and 14B is distilled qwen 2.5 (general purpose but good at coding). They have the entire table called out on their huggingface page, which is handy to know which one to use for specific purposes.
The full model is 671B and unfortunately not going to work on most consumer hardwares, so it is still tethered to the cloud for most people.
Also, it being a made in China model, there are some degree of censorship mandated. So depending on use case, this may be a point of consideration, too.
Overall, it’s super cool to see something at this level to be generally available, especially with all the technical details out in the open. Hopefully we’ll see more models with this level of capability become available so there are even more choices and competition.
Lemmy is bad with money, economics and business, also anti corporate/work, so anything positive towards corporate tends to be slammed with ignorance. I try my best to just ignore those replies / votes and move on.
Google reported to have earned 305B in 2023. Finland had an estimate of 300B GDP, while consuming 79.8 TWh of electricity.
So, in comparison, Google is massively more efficient than Finland?
Changing port is security by obscurity and it doesn’t take much time for botnets to scan all of IPV4 space on all ports. See for example the ever updated list that’s available on Shodan.
Disable password login and use certificates as you’ve suggested already, add fail2ban to block random drive-bys, and you’re off to the races.
deleted by creator