Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #225505 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Patrick Bartek <patrick.bartek@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-07-29 22:00 +0200 |
| Last post | 2020-08-04 06:30 +0200 |
| Articles | 14 on this page of 114 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
Homebuilt NAS Advice Patrick Bartek <patrick.bartek@gmail.com> - 2020-07-29 22:00 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2020-07-29 22:20 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2020-07-29 22:30 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2020-07-29 23:40 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Patrick Bartek <patrick.bartek@gmail.com> - 2020-07-30 02:50 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Tom Dial <tddial@comcast.net> - 2020-07-30 22:50 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> - 2020-08-02 01:40 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2020-08-02 03:10 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Keith Bainbridge <ke1th3216@gmail.com> - 2020-08-02 04:50 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2020-08-02 06:10 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> - 2020-08-02 21:30 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> - 2020-08-02 22:10 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2020-08-03 06:10 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Jonathan Dowland <jon+debian-user@dow.land> - 2020-08-03 17:30 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2020-08-03 17:40 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2020-08-03 18:40 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-08-03 19:10 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> - 2020-08-03 22:00 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-08-03 22:20 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2020-08-03 23:50 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> - 2020-08-04 00:50 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> - 2020-08-04 00:40 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2020-07-30 10:00 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-07-30 13:20 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> - 2020-07-30 01:50 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2020-07-30 23:40 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2020-08-08 01:30 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> - 2020-08-08 03:30 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2020-08-09 14:40 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Peter Ehlert <peter@sdi-baja.com> - 2020-07-30 19:00 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2020-07-30 21:50 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2020-07-31 13:10 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2020-07-30 23:30 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> - 2020-08-02 01:50 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2020-08-02 17:50 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Jonathan Dowland <jon+debian-user@dow.land> - 2020-08-03 17:20 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> - 2020-08-04 00:10 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-08-04 01:20 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2020-08-04 10:40 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Jonathan Dowland <jon+debian-user@dow.land> - 2020-08-04 11:30 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2020-08-04 16:00 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2020-08-04 16:30 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> - 2020-08-05 05:50 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2020-08-05 16:20 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Jonathan Dowland <jon+debian-user@dow.land> - 2020-08-05 17:00 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2020-08-05 17:40 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> - 2020-08-06 12:10 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2020-08-06 16:10 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> - 2020-08-06 17:10 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2020-08-06 18:10 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Jonathan Dowland <jon+debian-user@dow.land> - 2020-08-07 18:30 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2020-08-07 19:40 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-08-08 00:10 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2020-08-09 04:30 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Jonathan Dowland <jon+debian-user@dow.land> - 2020-08-09 11:10 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2020-08-09 17:00 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2020-08-09 18:30 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2020-08-09 19:20 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-08-09 23:50 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2020-08-10 00:00 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2020-08-10 00:30 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2020-08-10 00:50 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-08-10 00:30 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2020-08-10 00:30 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2020-08-09 18:40 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2020-08-09 23:00 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-08-06 18:20 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> - 2020-08-07 05:30 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Jonathan Dowland <jon+debian-user@dow.land> - 2020-08-07 18:30 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-08-06 17:20 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2020-08-06 18:20 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2020-08-06 18:20 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-08-04 17:20 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> - 2020-08-05 06:20 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> - 2020-08-05 04:30 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-08-05 09:20 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> - 2020-08-05 11:00 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-08-05 21:00 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> - 2020-08-06 03:50 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Kushal Kumaran <kushal@locationd.net> - 2020-08-06 06:20 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-08-06 18:20 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> - 2020-08-07 04:10 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2020-08-07 05:50 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Jonathan Dowland <jon+debian-user@dow.land> - 2020-08-05 12:30 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Jonathan Dowland <jon+debian-user@dow.land> - 2020-08-05 12:30 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-08-05 21:10 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Jonathan Dowland <jon+debian-user@dow.land> - 2020-08-05 23:30 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-08-06 00:30 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> - 2020-08-06 01:20 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Jonathan Dowland <jon+debian-user@dow.land> - 2020-08-08 09:10 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2020-08-06 04:30 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> - 2020-08-06 04:50 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2020-08-06 06:20 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> - 2020-08-06 07:10 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> - 2020-08-06 07:30 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2020-08-06 18:10 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-08-06 18:30 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> - 2020-08-07 03:00 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-08-07 03:20 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> - 2020-08-07 05:00 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2020-08-07 05:40 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> - 2020-08-07 08:00 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-08-07 08:50 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> - 2020-08-07 09:10 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2020-08-07 17:50 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> - 2020-08-08 01:40 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2020-08-08 04:50 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> - 2020-08-08 22:30 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2020-08-09 00:20 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-08-09 01:30 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2020-08-09 22:40 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2020-08-10 00:30 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> - 2020-08-10 01:30 +0200
Re: Homebuilt NAS Advice Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2020-08-04 06:30 +0200
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
| From | Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-07 05:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <AB1oB-2bd-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #225962 |
> If I were one to use a laptop - which I most certainly do not -
I think that's why you don't consider it unthinkable to carry around
such a thing along with your laptop.
What you're suggesting looks like the following to me:
- I go to my favorite café to work for the afternoon [ ah, the good ol'
days before covid! ]
- I take out my laptop
- I start to wo.... oh no, wait, I forgot, I also have to:
- take out my RAID disk
- plug it in
- notice that it needs power
- take out its power adapter
- look around to see where on earth I'm going to plug it
- wonder why I bother carrying a laptop with a battery if my drive needs
a power outlet
> I wouldn't carry the array around, however. It would sit either at
> home or at work (one and the same, for me) and I would access it
> through the internet.
So we're back at square one: your laptop wouldn't have a RAID drive and
neither your root partition nor your $HOME files would be protected
by RAID. I'm glad we agree ;-0
BTW, if you care about RAID and about having a laptop, there are many
good options out there for laptops that can take two internal drives
(either 2x 2½" or 2x M.2 or a mix of the two).
Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-07 08:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <AB3A5-3sy-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #225964 |
On 8/6/2020 10:36 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote: >> If I were one to use a laptop - which I most certainly do not - > > I think that's why you don't consider it unthinkable to carry around > such a thing along with your laptop. I carried around a 90 lb tool case everywhere for nearly 20 years. I've carried luggables that weighed almost 20 lbs. I've lugged 60 lbs of SCUBA gear all over creation. A laptop and a couple of small boxes is nothing. I don't carry a laptop because it is nearly impossible to get any work done on a laptop. If I did, I would certainly carry a full sized keyboard - probably a roll-up, a decent mouse, and a power brick. > What you're suggesting looks like the following to me: > - I go to my favorite caf?? to work for the afternoon [ ah, the good ol' > days before covid! ] I *NEVER* take work anywhere but work. When I eat, I eat. I don't even answer my cell phone. When I sleep, I sleep, and ditto. When I watch a movie, I watch a movie. 'No distractions, no matter what I am doing. The only thing I do in the office other than work is drink water. When I take a break, I go in the other room. > - I take out my laptop Which of course, is dead. That's OK, though because I immediately get out my power brick and plug in my laptop, and my phone, which is also nearly dead. Then I get out my keyboard, then my mouse, then my headphones. > - I start to wo.... oh no, wait, I forgot, I also have to: > - take out my RAID disk Yep. Oh, how strenuous. > - plug it in > - notice that it needs power > - take out its power adapter Nope, I just plug it into the same brick that powers the laptop and is charging my phone. > - look around to see where on earth I'm going to plug it > - wonder why I bother carrying a laptop with a battery if my drive needs > a power outlet Then I wonder why I am carrying around a laptop with a single minuscule screen, sitting in an uncomfortable chair in a place with glacial internet, a lot of noise, and an HVAC system set at who knows what temperature, when what is really needed is a system with two 32 inch monitors, a minimum of 8 processors running at least 4GHZ, and 32G of RAM. Why sit in such a place when I can sit in great comfort in a padded chair where I control the cooling and all the sounds, and where I can yell as loud as I like at vendors. Oh, and I don't eat at cafe's. If I go out, it is to a restaurant, and it is always with friends, or sometimes business associates. >> I wouldn't carry the array around, however. It would sit either at >> home or at work (one and the same, for me) and I would access it >> through the internet. > > So we're back at square one: your laptop wouldn't have a RAID drive and > neither your root partition nor your $HOME files would be protected > by RAID. The root partition doesn't need to be. Simple backups are OK for that, although if I did ever use a laptop for work, it would have a RAID 1 boot drive, just like the rest of my desktop computers. Plus, $HOME would be on a RAID array separate from the / source device, just like my other computers. > BTW, if you care about RAID and about having a laptop, there are many > good options out there for laptops that can take two internal drives > (either 2x 2??" or 2x M.2 or a mix of the two). I know that. This does not prevent one from having an external array.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-07 08:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <AB4mt-3Y4-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #225962 |
Leslie Rhorer wrote: > Come on. Be honest. How many messages in this or any other forum can > you specifically remember from a year ago? When was the last time you > read a post more than a year old? My servers have a permanent and > non-volatile memory (thank heavens), but I don't, and neither does the > average Debian user. Well, few days ago I read few threads from 2013/14 and I remember few that were helpful to me from past few years. I was referring the internet as a cache. The young people (I am also not that young) are very pragmatic. Most of them want to work from the phone if possible :D. I think it goes like phone, tablet, laptop and a desktop. The desktop they see as a tool to play games, because the hardware required does not fit into the other type of devices. I think the next generation will look at laptops the way this now is looking at desktops. I also agree that there are notebooks where you can put two disks inside, but I was not sure for the newer models with NMVIe or M.2 slots. On the older models I would replace the CD/DVD ROM with a case holding an SSD, but newer models do not have even CD ROM drive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-07 09:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <AB4FP-4ki-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #225942 |
On 8/6/2020 11:08 AM, Stefan Monnier wrote: >> For better performance, more space, and higher throughput, I would >> probably create a RAID 4 or RAID 6 array from the external enclosure >> and use it as the data repository. > > And you suggest I put a 4-drive enclosure in my backpack next to my laptop? > Seriously? Yes. Also a bottle of water and a pocket knife. >>> For the BananaPi, the suggestion is marginally less problematic but >>> still: a non-trivial constraint with significant immediate downsides. >> Such as? > > Extra space taken, extra power used 24/7 (which in turn requires an > extra plug because the poor BananaPi can't provide all that power), Now it is my turn to ask, "Seriously?" > extra costs (the single drive I use was itself more than 3/4 the price > of the whole system, so adding a second drive (complete with external > power supply and enclosure) would double the price of the system), The Banana Pi is indeed extremely economical. I have ten of them, plus 17 Raspberry Pi 3B computers. > Extra failures (more hardware => more failures), ... More failures on average, but far less serious and costly ones. >>> RAID is basically an insurance. >> Not entirely. A RAID 5 or RAID 6 array is far, far faster than >> a single hard drive. > > Right, RAID-over-USB is of course going to blow my SSD-over-SATA out of > the water by a wide margin (not!). On the Banana Pi it can. On the laptop, probably not, assuming as you say, an SSD. >> It is also much larger than a single hard drive, sometimes at >> less expense than a single large hard drive. > > That's great if you happen to be in that spot, but that's not my case. What spot? You mentioned cost. For many configurations, 4 small drives are cheaper than 1 large one. >> It is also portable from one system to another. Unplug the array >> from the laptop, plug it in to the Banana Pi, and presto! The array >> is now attached to the Pi. > > Wonderful. But then it's not a RAID shared with the internal drive > any more. So it won't protect my root partition. It can, but I probably would not. Assuimng / is, say, 20G or so, one can create a loop device on the array of the same size and make the internal drive and the loop device a RAID 1 mirror. If the main drive fails, install a new drive, partition it, boot from a thumb drive, make the new partition a mirror of the eternal file. Go away for an hour or two. The same can be done making a partition on the external drives instead of a loop device, but it is a little less flexible. > And if I keep my home > partition in it, the "presto" comes with the footnote "after you logout > and log back in" (fun!) You lost me. Why log out? > but if I don't keep my home partition on it, > then my home partition is again not protects by RAID at which point I'm > starting to wonder what I would put on that RAID. Data, but then I definitely recommend putting /home on the external array, so the question is a bit moot. >> It's really not any different logically than an external drive, >> except it is faster, larger, and more robust. > > It's no different, indeed, except a bit more expensive and bigger. Well, OK. How much is down-time worth? If you consider the cost of the downtime associated with a failed system to be trivial, then that aspect is not important. > But more importantly: there's a reason why I'm not using an external > drive at all in the first place. I am sure there is. Do you admit that external drives are extremely popular? Literally millions of them are sold every year. > If a disk dies in the RAID, you still have to replace it Well, one should. It's not required, and there have been cases where I could not replace a failed drive for several days. > and the > performance is affected for a while. The cost is never > completely eliminated. It is affected during the rebuild, not the time between the failure and replacing the drive. One can manage the amount of impact, however, and one can always delay the rebuild until off hours. >>> anyway (not to mention that RAID doesn't prevent me from losing work >>> when the OS or my editor crashes >> Uh, yeah, it can. It definitely can be used to eliminate data loss >> when the OS crashes, > > Of course it can't: when the OS crashes, the unsaved work in your editor > is lost. Yes, of course. I mistook what you were saying. Are you suggesting that is not the case for a non-RAID system, however? >> That is another matter. Indeed, it is probably the most likely >> reason a need for a backup solution exists. > > For my use-case, RAID would cost a fair bit of money and inconvenience, > and the benefit would be rare and minor. How much does downtime and time to rebuild a system cost you? For many of us, even an hour of downtime is very expensive, and rebuilding a machine during peak hours can be hideously costly. It is always a pain in the ass. > I suspect your "world" is one where you have U1 blades and things like No. My servers and workstations are relatively inexpensive desktop class clones. > that and/or where the disk's content is not 100% your own (i.e. other > people depend on it) Not exactly. It's not the content upo which people rely, per se, but the ability of the systems to remain online. More importantly in my case, *I* rely on the systems to be up continuously. Downtime can be very expensive for me. Certainly more than the cost of a hard drive. > so for your use case RAID is probably > a no-brainer. For me, the choice is similarly blindingly obvious but > diametrically opposed because my use case is radically different. Perhaps so. How many people - especially Debian users - consider a catastrophic failure to be cost-less? Debian's paradigm is based upon being rock solid and stable. Ubuntu gives up stability for the sake of new bells and whistles. I expect the typical Debian user is concerned about things like downtime and reliability. You seem not to be. If you are aware of and willing to take the risk, then that is fine. I certainly am not, and as a responsible professional I certainly would not ever recommend it. If anyone loses something based on my recommendation, they are very likely to come back and scream at me. I really don't care for that to happen. Safety at all levels is always my top consideration. The second is safety, followed by safety. After that, it is speed, efficiency, and cost, in that order, unless they impact safety. One could consider me obsessive, I suppose, but I cannot count the number of times being exceedingly cautious has saved my butt, and even my life. Unfortunately, I also cannot count the number of times not being quite cautious enough has jumped up and bitten me hard in the butt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-07 17:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ABcN3-DL-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #225969 |
>> Extra space taken, extra power used 24/7 (which in turn requires an
>> extra plug because the poor BananaPi can't provide all that power),
> Now it is my turn to ask, "Seriously?"
[ See, our use cases *are* very different. ]
Yes, in my experience Banana Pis quickly become unreliable if you push
their power system a bit (e.g. I've had no end of problems with it until
I finally found a good enough USB cable to provide power).
>> Extra failures (more hardware => more failures), ...
> More failures on average, but far less serious and costly ones.
In terms of monetary cost, the RAID solution is definitely on the "more
expensive" side (at least overall, and I can't see why it would be
cheaper "on the spot" when a you need to replace a failing drive).
As for less serious, as explained I have enough machine-level redundancy
that any hardware failure isn't really serious.
>>>> RAID is basically an insurance.
>>> Not entirely. A RAID 5 or RAID 6 array is far, far faster than
>>> a single hard drive.
>> Right, RAID-over-USB is of course going to blow my SSD-over-SATA out of
>> the water by a wide margin (not!).
> On the Banana Pi it can.
I'm not sure what makes you think so. In terms of bandwidth USB2 limits
you to about 30MB/s so even with the old 50MB/s max write speed limit of
the A20's SATA driver you're still going to lose, and in terms of
latency I have a hard time imagining how your RAID will be sufficiently
faster than a single SSD to overcome USB2's slowness.
>>> It is also much larger than a single hard drive, sometimes at
>>> less expense than a single large hard drive.
>> That's great if you happen to be in that spot, but that's not my case.
> What spot? You mentioned cost. For many configurations, 4 small
> drives are cheaper than 1 large one.
My space needs are sufficiently low that I don't need to buy an
expensive large drive. The drive with the lowest cost in terms of "GB
per $" is plenty for my needs.
>>> It is also portable from one system to another. Unplug the array
>>> from the laptop, plug it in to the Banana Pi, and presto! The array
>>> is now attached to the Pi.
>> Wonderful. But then it's not a RAID shared with the internal drive
>> any more. So it won't protect my root partition.
> It can, but I probably would not.
I don't think it can because you then have to sync the external drive
with two different internal drives and that seems to be asking for a lot
of trouble because of the need to keep your different systems 100% in-sync.
>> And if I keep my home partition in it, the "presto" comes with the
>> footnote "after you logout and log back in" (fun!)
> You lost me. Why log out?
In my experience unplugging a USB disk while it's mounted is a recipe
for hangs and replugging it will not always bring the partition back to life.
>> but if I don't keep my home partition on it, then my home partition
>> is again not protects by RAID at which point I'm starting to wonder
>> what I would put on that RAID.
> Data, but then I definitely recommend putting /home on the external
> array, so the question is a bit moot.
I don't have other data than /home on my laptop.
>>> It's really not any different logically than an external drive,
>>> except it is faster, larger, and more robust.
>> It's no different, indeed, except a bit more expensive and bigger.
> Well, OK. How much is down-time worth?
What down time?
You mean the time to walk over and grab my hot spare laptop?
> If you consider the cost of the downtime associated with
> a failed system to be trivial, then that aspect is
> not important.
That's exactly my point.
Even more so when that downtime only happens once every 10 years or so
(my rate so far is a bit lower than that, but let's assume that a drive
of mine will fail tomorrow).
>> But more importantly: there's a reason why I'm not using an external
>> drive at all in the first place.
> I am sure there is. Do you admit that external drives are extremely
> popular? Literally millions of them are sold every year.
Yes, and so were floppys and optical drives. I stopped using floppys
when I got access to the internet, and I never started using optical
drives because... well I already had access to the internet at that
point ;-)
> Yes, of course. I mistook what you were saying. Are you
> suggesting that is not the case for a non-RAID system, however?
No, I'm just saying that RAID will save me from this trouble once every
10 years, but other things will still cause me to lose some of my work
several times a year, so the gain of RAID is a drop in the ocean.
>>> That is another matter. Indeed, it is probably the most likely
>>> reason a need for a backup solution exists.
>> For my use-case, RAID would cost a fair bit of money and inconvenience,
>> and the benefit would be rare and minor.
> How much does downtime and time to rebuild a system cost you?
As I said, downtime is minimal because I have other machines I can use
"on the spot".
As for time to rebuild a system, it's a matter of connecting the new
drive to my running system (via an external enclosure) to clone the
100GB or so of my root+home and then put the drive into its
final destination.
Not fundamentally very different from plugging it into the machine and
waiting for the RAID system to do the close. The main difference is
that the machine is temporarily unusable, but since I have other
machines it's not a significant issue.
> For many of us, even an hour of downtime is very expensive, and
> rebuilding a machine during peak hours can be hideously costly.
> It is always a pain in the ass.
Yes, I agree that RAID can be handy in some contexts.
> Perhaps so. How many people - especially Debian users - consider
> a catastrophic failure to be cost-less? Debian's paradigm is based
> upon being rock solid and stable. Ubuntu gives up stability for the
> sake of new bells and whistles. I expect the typical Debian user is
> concerned about things like downtime and reliability. You seem not
> to be. If you are aware of and willing to take the risk, then that
> is fine. I certainly am not, and as a responsible professional
> I certainly would not ever recommend it. If anyone loses something
> based on my recommendation, they are very likely to come back and
> scream at me. I really don't care for that to happen.
I think part of the difference is also where we get the "reliability via
redundancy". I use my machines in such a way that none of them
are indispensable.
Another part is yet different: I spend a fair bit of my time hacking on
my own editor (where I do all my work). So my editor tends to crash
more often than it should because of bugs I introduced into it, so I got
used to working under the assumption that "failure is normal".
Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-08 01:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ABk7U-56W-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #225983 |
On 8/7/2020 10:48 AM, Stefan Monnier wrote: >>> Extra space taken, extra power used 24/7 (which in turn requires an >>> extra plug because the poor BananaPi can't provide all that power), >> Now it is my turn to ask, "Seriously?" > > [ See, our use cases *are* very different. ] > Yes, in my experience Banana Pis quickly become unreliable if you push > their power system a bit (e.g. I've had no end of problems with it until > I finally found a good enough USB cable to provide power). No, I am talking about "Extra space taken, extra power used 24/7". An external device just does not use that much power or take a lot of space. >>> Extra failures (more hardware => more failures), ... >> More failures on average, but far less serious and costly ones. > > In terms of monetary cost, the RAID solution is definitely on the "more > expensive" side (at least overall, and I can't see why it would be > cheaper "on the spot" when a you need to replace a failing drive). RAID originally stood for "Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks". Folks now tend to use "Redundant Array of Independent Disks", in part because many RAID arrays use very expensive disks, but also because the delta in cost between large, fast disks and smaller, slower disks is no longer all that high. Nonetheless, it is still true a collection of smaller disks can be less expensive than a large disk, especially if one already has some smaller disks laying around. >>>>> RAID is basically an insurance. >>>> Not entirely. A RAID 5 or RAID 6 array is far, far faster than >>>> a single hard drive. >>> Right, RAID-over-USB is of course going to blow my SSD-over-SATA out of >>> the water by a wide margin (not!). >> On the Banana Pi it can. > > I'm not sure what makes you think so. In terms of bandwidth USB2 limits With some exceptions, the Pi boards use micro SD cards. They are slower than an external drive. I have confirmed that. >>>> It is also much larger than a single hard drive, sometimes at >>>> less expense than a single large hard drive. >>> That's great if you happen to be in that spot, but that's not my case. >> What spot? You mentioned cost. For many configurations, 4 small >> drives are cheaper than 1 large one. > > My space needs are sufficiently low that I don't need to buy an > expensive large drive. The drive with the lowest cost in terms of "GB > per $" is plenty for my needs. This thread is about a NAS, remember? By definition it is a repository of data. > I don't think it can because you then have to sync the external drive > with two different internal drives and that seems to be asking for a lot > of trouble because of the need to keep your different systems 100% in-sync. That is very simple to accomplish. A boot script will do it. >>> And if I keep my home partition in it, the "presto" comes with the >>> footnote "after you logout and log back in" (fun!) >> You lost me. Why log out? > > In my experience unplugging a USB disk while it's mounted is a recipe > for hangs and replugging it will not always bring the partition back to life. Why do that? Boot the machine with the array attached. In any case, we are talking about an available option, here. It exists with an external device. It does not without. One chooses to avail one's self of an available option, or not. Without the option, there is no choice. I definitely prefer options. >>> but if I don't keep my home partition on it, then my home partition >>> is again not protects by RAID at which point I'm starting to wonder >>> what I would put on that RAID. >> Data, but then I definitely recommend putting /home on the external >> array, so the question is a bit moot. > > I don't have other data than /home on my laptop. Again, I remind you this thread is about a NAS. > >>>> It's really not any different logically than an external drive, >>>> except it is faster, larger, and more robust. >>> It's no different, indeed, except a bit more expensive and bigger. >> Well, OK. How much is down-time worth? > > What down time? > You mean the time to walk over and grab my hot spare laptop? Which does not have the information on the failed laptop. If that information is at all important, it constitutes downtime to recover it. For a NAS, that can be pretty big. >> If you consider the cost of the downtime associated with >> a failed system to be trivial, then that aspect is >> not important. > > That's exactly my point. Does that relate well to the thread? To other people setting up a NAS? > Even more so when that downtime only happens once every 10 years or so > (my rate so far is a bit lower than that, but let's assume that a drive > of mine will fail tomorrow). I had to deal with six failed drives last month. While higher than most months, it isn't a record, either. My downtime? Zero. Compare that to a Windows system which suffered a catastrophic failure of its RAID array a few months ago. I am still recovering from that. >>> But more importantly: there's a reason why I'm not using an external >>> drive at all in the first place. >> I am sure there is. Do you admit that external drives are extremely >> popular? Literally millions of them are sold every year. > > Yes, and so were floppys and optical drives. That's argumentative. They serve a very real purpose. > No, I'm just saying that RAID will save me from this trouble once every > 10 years, but other things will still cause me to lose some of my work > several times a year, so the gain of RAID is a drop in the ocean. All I can say as a 40 year veteran in this industry is that is not my experience. > As I said, downtime is minimal because I have other machines I can use > "on the spot". Again, not with the data from the failed system. > As for time to rebuild a system, it's a matter of connecting the new > drive to my running system (via an external enclosure) to clone the > 100GB or so of my root+home and then put the drive into its > final destination. Yet again, missing any data on the old machine. If that data is not important, then fine, although it begs the question, "Why have a computer at all?" If a backup exists, then the data can be recovered onto the new system, but that takes *TIME*. Any data not on a backup must be manually recovered by reproducing the original work, and that can really take *TIME*. In my case, sometimes months. I am talking about a real-world scenario, here, which actually happened, not a hypothetical. I am also talking about five digits in terms of the cost. > Not fundamentally very different from plugging it into the machine and > waiting for the RAID system to do the close. The main difference is > that the machine is temporarily unusable, but since I have other > machines it's not a significant issue. You seem to be stuck on hardware. Machines are extremely cheap, especially compared to the data they usually host. While firing up a new machine does take a significant amount of time and a little money, it is nothing compared to the loss of important data. Even if the data is backed up, which it should be, it still takes time to restore it. >> For many of us, even an hour of downtime is very expensive, and >> rebuilding a machine during peak hours can be hideously costly. >> It is always a pain in the ass. > > Yes, I agree that RAID can be handy in some contexts. No, it is *ESSENTIAL* whenever time and data are important. > I think part of the difference is also where we get the "reliability via > redundancy". I use my machines in such a way that none of them > are indispensable. My machines are completely dispensable, although of course I don't like having to pay for a new machine and the time and effort to build it. What is not dispensable is my time and the time my clients have to wait for me. Wasted time with a vendor can be expensive, too. Even if the delay is not serious, it is still distressing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-08 04:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ABn5L-6WP-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #225995 |
> No, I am talking about "Extra space taken, extra power used 24/7".
> An external device just does not use that much power
It can easily end up consuming about as much power as my BananaPi, so it
risks doubling the power consumption.
> or take a lot of space.
I suspect my wife would disagree.
>>>> Right, RAID-over-USB is of course going to blow my SSD-over-SATA out of
>>>> the water by a wide margin (not!).
>>> On the Banana Pi it can.
>> I'm not sure what makes you think so. In terms of bandwidth USB2 limits
> With some exceptions, the Pi boards use micro SD cards. They are
> slower than an external drive. I have confirmed that.
I'm talking about SSD-over-SATA, not SD cards.
I specifically chose boards using the A20 CPU (like the BananaPi)
because that SoC comes with a real SATA port (tho its driver was limited
to about 50MB/s write speed for some reason until a fairly recent kernel
patch).
> This thread is about a NAS, remember? By definition it is
> a repository of data.
Fair enough. We drifted to laptops and such, but indeed the subject
was NAS. So yes, I have data there (mostly music/photos/videos, and backups)
>>>> And if I keep my home partition in it, the "presto" comes with the
>>>> footnote "after you logout and log back in" (fun!)
>>> You lost me. Why log out?
>> In my experience unplugging a USB disk while it's mounted is a recipe
>> for hangs and replugging it will not always bring the partition back to life.
> Why do that? Boot the machine with the array attached.
Booting is something I do very rarely.
>>>> It's no different, indeed, except a bit more expensive and bigger.
>>> Well, OK. How much is down-time worth?
>> What down time?
>> You mean the time to walk over and grab my hot spare laptop?
> Which does not have the information on the failed laptop.
As mentioned at the beginning of the thread, the vast majority of the
files on are regularly pushed to a Git server or are under IMAP, so
anything older than a couple of hours (give or take) will be available
to the hot spare.
> If that information is at all important, it constitutes downtime
> to recover it. For a NAS, that can be pretty big.
The files on my servers change even much more slowly, so I sync the two
servers manually (by running an `rsync` script) whenever I put important
new info on them (i.e. new music/photos/videos).
>> Even more so when that downtime only happens once every 10 years or so
>> (my rate so far is a bit lower than that, but let's assume that a drive
>> of mine will fail tomorrow).
> I had to deal with six failed drives last month.
I've had to deal with 2 failed drives over my lifetime so far ;-)
>> No, I'm just saying that RAID will save me from this trouble once every
>> 10 years, but other things will still cause me to lose some of my work
>> several times a year, so the gain of RAID is a drop in the ocean.
> All I can say as a 40 year veteran in this industry is that is not
> my experience.
That's because your use cases are very different from mine (I don't
think the 5 years less than you of "veteranism" is the deciding factor).
>> As I said, downtime is minimal because I have other machines I can use
>> "on the spot".
> Again, not with the data from the failed system.
The only really valuable data that I produce is code, and when I lose the
last N hours of code I wrote, it takes me much less than N hours to
reproduce it. And drive failure is but one reason why I sometimes lose code.
> Yet again, missing any data on the old machine. If that data is not
> important, then fine, although it begs the question, "Why have a
> computer at all?" If a backup exists, then the data can be recovered onto
> the new system, but that takes *TIME*. Any data not on a backup must be
> manually recovered by reproducing the original work, and that can really
> take *TIME*. In my case, sometimes months. I am talking about a real-world
> scenario, here, which actually happened, not a hypothetical. I am also
> talking about five digits in terms of the cost.
I've been a sysadmin, and have used RAID then (there wasn't even
a question of using RAID or not). But different use-cases call for
different choices.
>> Yes, I agree that RAID can be handy in some contexts.
> No, it is *ESSENTIAL* whenever time and data are important.
Redundancy is essential, yes. RAID is one way to get redundancy.
Not the only one.
Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-08 22:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ABDDA-8e-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #225998 |
On 8/7/2020 9:48 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote: >> No, I am talking about "Extra space taken, extra power used 24/7". >> An external device just does not use that much power > > It can easily end up consuming about as much power as my BananaPi, so it > risks doubling the power consumption. Oh, for goodness sake! The BPi uses less than 1 ampere at 5V. That is under 5W, or 120 watt-hours per day. In a year, it will use less than 40 KWH. At $0.12 per KWH, that is $5 or less, for full year in operation. The external enclosure will no doubt use more, although if it hosts SSDs, then perhaps not. Is $10 or $15 a year really a large burden for you? >> or take a lot of space. > > I suspect my wife would disagree. The unit in the link I provided is smaller than a 2 liter bottle of soda. If your wife won't let you have that much room, you have bigger problems than a failed drive. > I've had to deal with 2 failed drives over my lifetime so far ;-) You must be quite young or else not do much computing. Three to 4 drives a month is about average, for me. > The only really valuable data that I produce is code, and when I lose the > last N hours of code I wrote, it takes me much less than N hours to > reproduce it. That is still N hours. I can't afford to lose N hours. An extra hard drive costs less than 30 minutes of my time. > And drive failure is but one reason why I sometimes lose code. Indubitably. I do a great deal more than just write code, but with the exception of the aforementioned Windows system, it has been years since I lost anything for any reason other than my own stupidity. > I've been a sysadmin, and have used RAID then (there wasn't even > a question of using RAID or not). But different use-cases call for > different choices. Without question. >>> Yes, I agree that RAID can be handy in some contexts. >> No, it is *ESSENTIAL* whenever time and data are important. > > Redundancy is essential, yes. RAID is one way to get redundancy. > Not the only one. OK, but RAID is the fastest, easiest, and least expensive way of preventing loss due to a drive failure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-09 00:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ABFm2-1dM-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #226023 |
> Oh, for goodness sake! The BPi uses less than 1 ampere at 5V.
> That is under 5W, or 120 watt-hours per day. In a year, it will use
> less than 40 KWH. At $0.12 per KWH, that is $5 or less, for full
> year in operation. The external enclosure will no doubt use more,
> although if it hosts SSDs, then perhaps not. Is $10 or $15 a year
> really a large burden for you?
The question is not whether I can but whether I should.
>> I've had to deal with 2 failed drives over my lifetime so far ;-)
> You must be quite young or else not do much computing.
I don't do much computing, I guess (but I'm a CS professor and a Free
Software developer in my spare time, so I do use computers for most of
my waking life).
> Three to 4 drives a month is about average, for me.
I have a total of 9 drives currently "in use" (i.e. which I'd have to
replace if they were to die). I suspect you have many more.
Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-09 01:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ABGrL-1Qu-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #226025 |
Stefan Monnier wrote: > I have a total of 9 drives currently "in use" (i.e. which I'd have to > replace if they were to die). I suspect you have many more. Also the quality of the drives is important. Leslie puts a 10G network interface, but by the speed you calculated, he has either poor controller and/or poor drives. I found out best drives for NAS and home server (in terms of price/quality) were WD Red precisely WD20EFRX. I saw last year there were complains of the 3 and 4TB drives, but the 2TB are solid. So in about 15y I replaced many IDE and later SATA drives, but since I use the WD20EFRX I did not have any issues. So the high number Leslie replaces might have a different cause.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-09 22:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <AC0gO-5r7-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #225995 |
On 2020-08-07 16:33, Leslie Rhorer wrote: > Nonetheless, it is still true a collection of smaller disks can be less > expensive than a large disk In the past, that was usually true. But, take a look at the current pricing of Seagate Exos drives on Amazon [1]: $372.30 / 16 TB = 23.27 $/TB $319.99 / 14 TB = 22.86 $/TB $319.99 / 12 TB = 26,67 $/TB $249.99 / 10 TB = 25.00 $/TB $190.39 / 8 TB = 23.80 $/TB $152.95 / 6 TB = 25.49 $/TB $161.64 / 4 TB = 40.41 $/TB $122.85 / 2 TB = 61.43 $/TB $90.10 / 1 TB = 90.10 $/TB And, of course, the above prices do not include "everything else" -- racks, cables, interfaces, power supplies, and electrical consumption -- which increase as the number of drives increases. 16 TB drives are going to have the lowest total installed cost for a given total storage capacity. Then again, many small drives have higher performance than fewer large drives of the same total capacity. So, it's a balancing act. David https://www.amazon.com/Seagate-256MB-3-5-Inch-Enterprise-ST16000NM001G/dp/B07SPFPKF4/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=seagate+exos&qid=1597004435&sr=8-2
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-10 00:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <AC1Zf-6vS-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #226045 |
On 2020-08-09 13:38, David Christensen wrote: > Then again, many small drives have higher performance than fewer large > drives of the same total capacity. And a higher probability of failure. David
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-10 01:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <AC2Vm-74F-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #226050 |
On 8/9/2020 5:26 PM, David Christensen wrote: > On 2020-08-09 13:38, David Christensen wrote: > >> Then again, many small drives have higher performance than fewer large >> drives of the same total capacity. > > And a higher probability of failure. Not necessarily. If the smaller drives have a greater MTBF, then the failure rate may be lower, and in fact often is. By implementing RAID 6 with 2 parity drives and a hot spare, I sleep pretty well at night.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-04 06:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <AzWKl-3IR-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #225775 |
On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 16:14:46 +0100 Jonathan Dowland <jon+debian-user@dow.land> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 12:40:03PM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote: > >Anyone currently using OpenMediaVault, or have recommendations for > >another package, or advice, in general, on homebuilt NAS? > > My advice is to keep it boring and mundane, and avoid the temptation > to try some flashy technology Just Because. (I put ZFS in that category, > personally; and BTRFS). My NAS runs stock Debian and I've documented it > here: <https://jmtd.net/hardware/phobos/> With anything new I attempt, I always KISS. Why create problems? Since the box will be mainly storage -- backups, files, etc. -- I'm just going to stick with the old, tried and true ext4. For my purposes, ZFS is not needed even though it has advantages. I'm starting with one data drive and adding drives as needed. As I'm not a hoarder, or music or movie fanatic, don't run my own web site or email server, it will take a long time to fill that first drive, if ever. Probably will never use RAID. Don't need the speed of striping. Or parity. Everything on the box will have a copy somewhere else. And I'll be the only one accessing it. Can't think of any other ways to keep it more boring and mudane. Thanks for your recommendations. B
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web