You probably have a higher attack surface from the gremlins in your walls. OTOH, Amazon knowing that you use Mullvad is a tangible downside, as they will probably use that to stick you in a marketing group or something. Monero is still an easy solution with the ~same cost if you’re concerned about that.

How would Amazon track a voucher? It’s a physical scratch off code, sealed by Mullvad before they send it over to Amazon. More importantly, if you think that was possible why would Mullvad be unaware of it and/or lie about it? Just go with the vouchers if you want untraceability. They’re also cheaper in USD than other methods IIRC, at $29/6 months and $57/12 months.

I feel piracy for demo purposes is fully justified if you buy it after you like it. People always say vote with your wallet but it’s more like gambling with your wallet if you don’t get to see and touch the product before you make the purchase. Giving proper demos should be more common with digital media.

JXL is the best image codec we have so far and it’s not even close. I did a breakdown on some of its benefits here. JXL can losslessly convert PNG, JPG, and GIF into itself, and can losslessly send them back the other way too. The main downside is that Google has been blocking its adoption by keeping support out of Chromium in favor of pushing AVIF, which started a chicken and egg problem of no one wanting to use it until everyone else started using it too. If you want to be an early adopter you can feel free to use JXL, but just know that 3rd party software support is still maturing.

Something you might find interesting is that the original JPEG is such a badass format that they’ve taken a lot of their findings from JXL and made a badass JPEG encoder with it named jpegli. Oddly, jpegli-based JPEGs are not yet able to be losslessly-compressed into JXL files, per this issue - hopefully that will be fixed at some point.

I’ve seen a trend where people move the goalposts on the reasons they’re not able to switch. “If only this program worked I could switch”, but when that program is ported it’ll be a new excuse next. Sooner or later you’ll have to draw a line and say “99% of my stuff works, the 1% that doesn’t can get bent”.

Usually torrents remain seeded because private tracker users are encouraged to seed everything forever. In addition, often if a private tracker has a bonus system they will offer extra bonus points for seeding low-seed torrents, and some even automatically mark torrents as freeleech if they’re below ~5 seeds, encouraging people to revive its seed count in a targeted manner.

Mirrored vdevs allow growth by adding a pair at a time, yes. Healing works with mirrors, because each of the two disks in a mirror are supposed to have the same data as each other. When a read or scrub happens, if there’s any checksum failures it will replace the failed block on Disk1 with Disk2’s copy of that block.

Many ZFS’ers swear by mirrored vdevs because they give you the best performance, they’re more flexible, and resilvering from a failed mirror disk is an order of magnitude faster than resilvering from a failed RAIDZ - leaving less time for a second disk failure. The big downside is that they eat 50% of your disk capacity. I personally run mirrored vdevs because it’s more flexible for a small home NAS, and I make up for some of the disk inefficiency by being able to buy any-size disks on sale and throw them in whenever I see a good price.

The main problem with self-healing is that ZFS needs to have access to two copies of data, usually solved by having 2+ disks. When you expose an mdadm device ZFS will only perceive one disk and one copy of data, so it won’t try to store 2 copies of data anywhere. Underneath, mdadm will be storing the two copies of data, so any healing would need to be handled by mdadm directly instead. ZFS normally auto-heals when it reads data and when it scrubs, but in this setup mdadm would need to start the healing process through whatever measures it has (probably just scrubbing?)

ZFS can grow if it has extra space on the disk. The obvious answer is that you should really be using RAIDZ2 instead if you are going with ZFS, but I assume you don’t like the inflexibility of RAIDZ resizing. RAIDZ expansion has been merged into OpenZFS, but it will probably take a year or so to actually land in the next release. RAIDZ2 could still be an option if you aren’t planning on growing before it lands. I don’t have much experience with mdadm, but my guess is that with mdadm+ZFS, features like self-healing won’t work because ZFS isn’t aware of the RAID at a low-level. I would expect it to be slightly janky in a lot of ways compared to RAIDZ, and if you still want to try it you may become the foremost expert on the combination.

ZFS without redundancy is not great in the sense that redundancy is ideal in all scenarios, but it’s still a modern filesystem with a lot of good features, just like BTRFS. The main problem will be that it can detect data corruption but not heal it automatically. Transparent compression, snapshotting, data checksums, copy-on-write (power loss resiliency), and reflinking are modern features of both ZFS/BTRFS, and BTRFS additionally offers offline-deduplication, meaning you can deduplicate any data block that exists twice in your pool without incurring the massive resources that ZFS deduplication requires. ZFS is the more mature of the two, and I would use that if you’ve already got ZFS tooling set up on your machine.

Note that the TrueNAS forums spread a lot of FUD about ZFS, but ZFS without redundancy is ok. I would take anything alarmist from there with a grain of salt. BTRFS and ZFS both store 2 copies of all metadata by default, so bitrot will be auto-healed on a filesystem level when it’s read or scrubbed.

Edit: As for write amplification, just use ashift=12 and don’t worry too much about it.

ZFS doesn’t eat your SSD endurance. If anything it is the best option since you can enable ZSTD compression for smaller reads/writes and reads will often come from the RAM-based ARC cache instead of your SSDs. ZFS is also practically allergic to rewriting data that already exists in the pool, so once something is written it should never cost a write again - especially if you’re using OpenZFS 2.2 or above which has reflinking.

My guess is you were reading about SLOG devices, which do need heavier endurance as they replicate every write coming into your HDD array (every synchronous write, anyway). SLOG devices are only useful in HDD pools, and even then they’re not a must-have.

IMO just throw in whatever is cheapest or has your desired performance. Modern SSD write endurance is way better than it used to be and even if you somehow use it all up after a decade, the money you save by buying a cheaper one will pay for the replacement.

I would also recommend using ZFS or BTRFS on the data drive, even without redundancy. These filesystems store checksums of all data so you know if anything has bitrot when you scrub it. XFS/Ext4/etc store your data but they have no idea if it’s still good or not.