Given that you installed Linux on a separate drive, it’s likely that the Windows bootloader is perfectly fine but your BIOS chooses to prioritize the Linux disk. I would check if you can still select the Windows drive / installation in the BIOS / boot media selection.

Typically, Fedora should also add the Windows installation to its bootloader (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/grub2-bootloader/#_adding_other_operating_systems_to_the_grub2_menu). It uses os-prober to find other operating systems. Can you post the output of sudo os-prober?

Edit: The output of lsblk -f would also be useful (though you may want to anonymize it first).

This seems to be a limitation of Intel host controllers. The USB 2.0 specification (including 12 Mbps Full Speed) allows for up to 127 devices. Each of those devices can have up to 16 IN and 16 OUT endpoints, c.f. https://www.usbmadesimple.co.uk/ums_3.htm Depending on how you count, that would be a maximum of 2k to 4k endpoints in total. I guess Intel thought it wasn’t worthwhile supporting that many endpoints.

Some quick searching turned up this post that claims that USB3 controllers often support up to 254 endpoints (in total). https://www.cambrionix.com/a-quick-guide-to-usb-endpoint-limitations/ Other posters have also said that AMD appears to have higher limits. You could also consider adding more USB root hubs to your system (with PCIe cards).

Unfotunately, I can help you with that. The machine is not running any VMs.

It’s possible, but you should be able to see it quite easily. In my case, the CPU utilization was very low, so the same test should also not be CPU-bottlenecked on your system.

I’m seeing very similar speeds on my two-HDD RAID1. The computer has an AMD 8500G CPU but the load from ZFS is minimal. Reading / writing a 50GB /dev/urandom file (larger than the cache) gives me:

• 169 MB/s write
• 254 MB/s read

What’s your setup?

With version 2.3 (currently in RC), ZFS will at least support RAIDZ expansion. That should already help a lot for a NAS usecase.

We use Alma Linux at work and it’s fine, I suppose. I see two main reasons why you’d choose an EL linux distro:

1. You have (professional) software that officially supports it. RHEL’s release model makes it an attractive target for proprietary software and many vendors choose to support it.
2. You need/want very long support cycles. You can run 10-year-old software even though you probably shouldn’t.

Apart from those, it’s a competent distro, Red Hat know what they’re doing. If you want the equivalent to an Ubuntu LTS / Debian in the Fedora world, it get’s the job done. I quite like their approach of keeping the core OS stable while updating drivers, tools, and compilers (e.g., the kernel version number has very little meaning in RHEL).

Is the experience very different from Fedora?

Yes. the age of the core packages is very noticeable. The number of fully supported packages is also very small and you need to go to EPEL very quickly (at which point you’re no longer getting enterprise support…). On the plus side, it’s much more stable than Fedora in my experience.

Edit: My main recommendation for a stable distro would probably be Debian unless one of the above points applies.

That system also sounds a lot more capable than mine. How did you end up with 25 VMs?

I’m running it in a regular mATX case (Node 804) but I think you can also get AM5 motherboards in rack-mount cases.

Perhaps my recent NAS/home server build can serve as a bit of an inspiration for you:

• AMD Ryzen 8500G (8 cores, much more powerful than your two CPUs, with iGPU)
• Standard B650 mainboard, 32 GB RAM
• 2 x used 10 TB HDDs in a ZFS pool (mainboard has 4x SATA ports)
• Debian Bookworm with Docker containers for applications (containers should be more efficient than VMs).
• Average power consumption of 19W. Usually cooled passively.

I don’t think it’s more efficient to separate processing and storage so I’d only go for that if you want to play around with a cluster. I would also avoid SD cards as a root FS, as they tend to die early and catastrophically.

It sounds like Proton VPN (or its repo) is causing issues for you. Given that it’s a paid service, you can probably contact their support.

Alternatively, you can also look for the repo file in /etc/yum.repos.d, something like /etc/yum.repos.d/file_name.repo, for Proton VPN. You can then disable it by renaming it to .repo.disabled and try again (sudo dnf upgrade in the terminal). Note: This is not really a permanent solution, as it will disable updates for Proton VPN.

It sounds like the criterion is “is newer microcode available”. So it doesn’t look like a marketing strategy to sell new CPUs.

Nice, congrats on getting it to work! :) Native Debian packages are also nice. It can just get difficult if you want the latest stuff.

I used the docker compose template from https://hub.docker.com/_/drupal and mostly changed the image:

# Drupal with PostgreSQL
#
# Access via "http://localhost:8080"
#   (or "http://$(docker-machine ip):8080" if using docker-machine)
#
# During initial Drupal setup,
# Database type: PostgreSQL
# Database name: postgres
# Database username: postgres
# Database password: example
# ADVANCED OPTIONS; Database host: postgres

version: '3.1'

services:

  drupal:
    # image: drupal:10-apache
    # image: drupal:10.3.7-apache-bookworm
    # image: drupal:10.3.6-apache-bookworm
    image: drupal:11.0.5-apache-bookworm
    # image: drupal:10-php8.3-fpm-alpine
    ports:
      - 8080:80
    volumes:
      - /var/www/html/modules
      - /var/www/html/profiles
      - /var/www/html/themes
      # this takes advantage of the feature in Docker that a new anonymous
      # volume (which is what we're creating here) will be initialized with the
      # existing content of the image at the same location
      - /var/www/html/sites
    restart: always
    environment:
      PHP_MEMORY_LIMIT: "1024M"

  postgres:
    image: postgres:16
    environment:
      POSTGRES_PASSWORD: example
    restart: always

The details for the v11 image are here: https://hub.docker.com/layers/library/drupal/11.0.5-apache-bookworm/images/sha256-0e41e0173b4b5d470d30e2486016e1355608ab40651549e3e146a7334f9c8f77?context=explore

Yes, the docker images don’t use the sury.org php packages (they use the php docker image).

“11.0.5-apache-bookworm” also seems to work, maybe you can try that version?

I wanted to recommend using a Docker container but I ran into the same issue with the default config for “drupal:10-apache” (aka “drupal:10.3.7-apache-bookworm”). Opening “node/add/article” results in the OOM error. Downgrading to “drupal:10.3.6-apache-bookworm” resolved the issue. Looks like a Drupal regression to me. Maybe you can also try an older version of Drupal 11?

If you don’t want to reinstall the OS, you can probably use Clonezilla: https://clonezilla.org/show-live-doc-content.php?topic=clonezilla-live/doc/03_Disk_to_disk_clone

Maybe you need to update the drive ids for your bootloader (grub) afterwards, not sure about that.

Edit: Maybe the advanced “-g auto” option does that for you.

It seems that 18.04 was the last release for 32-bit x86 (i386): https://askubuntu.com/questions/1376090/latest-version-of-ubuntu-for-i386-architecture-32-bit

But you could just go for Debian which still supports it.

It’s an Apple Silicon Mac Mini. Do you have a particular reason to think the new one is less efficient?