We are on Fidelity. But self-directed on all the big ones are no fee and free trades these days - Vanguard, Fidelity, Merrill and probably others. Just need to watch the fund/ETF fees to have a total cost.

That’s better for sure. Still too much for me. Our all-in investment cost is 0.05% now. That’s a lot of free compounded yield compared against guided investments which are themselves no better than the average market (on average).

That’s all fine, but just be sure you know how much you’re paying them for that service. Before we switched to self-managed a number of years ago our guys were taking 1.4% off the top of the whole account just to pick a bunch of index ETFs. Market goes up 5% and I only see 3.6% of it. Not good. Plus the ETFs they picked had higher expenses than just going with a whole market choice.

They offered to get us on a plan at 1%. Ha, no thanks.

Nice, I’ll check it out! I remember LMS and Squeezebox. Didn’t know it would sync between rooms, and I didn’t know it had been open sourced, that’s excellent.

At the time we started in the Sonos ecosystem we wanted easy, and it provided that. Now I’ve got multiple servers running, self-hosting services for the family, slowly working on removing our cloud service dependencies. So this would fit right in.

Yeah, I get what you’re saying. Definitely. It’s not complicated for one pair of speakers in one room. For one music source. For one person controlling it.

There just haven’t been any better cost-effective solutions with multi-room, control from your any phone convenience. And that’s a big plus for how we listen to music. Today there are a few contenders, but many of them are also cloud dependent. Really the small number of good options in this space is proof of how good Sonos was for a long time. Well and also of Spotify causing people ditch the idea of a offline digital music library.

Edit: And to be clear, aside from the “any computer networks” part, this is what the original Sonos device did. It could work without a home network, but worked best with a shared music library on a PC. Didn’t need cloud anything, internet connection, account, etc. You just hooked your normal speakers to it and it played music.

See what’s using the space. This will list any dirs using >100MiB:

sudo du -h -d 5 -t 100M /var

Interesting. In NC here. Not sure if there’s a difference regionally. I was seeing that kind of RTT on ipv4, but ipv6 was slower. I’ll need to give it another try. The last time I did was at my last place where I had the BGW210. I have the BGW320 now and haven’t tried on that. Maybe that, or changes in their routing since then will make a difference.

Did I read right that it doesn’t use systemd?

AT&T is the same. And the last time I looked they don’t give you enough address space to host your own subnet. You get a /64 instead of a /56. And it’s slower than ipv4.

Every few months I try it out, complain and then switch it off.

Obligatory: Debian.

But I’d be tempted to put Proxmox on it and then run containers for each function. Then you get purpose-crafted solutions for each use case, but can easily plug new functions in or shut them down based on what you decide later.

So. Much.

Wasted

Space

Copy on write is the difference. As I understand it, a btrfs snapshot takes no space when it’s created (beyond the file system record). The filesystem is always writing changes to file chunks as a new copy of the chunk, which is then recorded as a replacement of the old chunk (which is still present on-disk). So a snapshot tracks all of these later changes, and the file system keeps the old file chunks preserved as long as you keep the snapshot. That’s why you can mount a btrfs snapshot. It just shows you the volume through the lens of all of these saved changes.

When you delete a snapshot you are then marking these preserved chunks as free space. So that is also quick.