I did a thing, have a quick Linux question
-
@Sparkum said in I did a thing, have a quick Linux question:
Yep just learning, I leave Plex to my Windows box (for now atleast)
I'm ready for my Windows box to go away, lol.
-
@Sparkum said in I did a thing, have a quick Linux question:
Yep just learning, I leave Plex to my Windows box (for now atleast)
Plex runs SO much better on Linux. I can't even articulate it well enough honestly. Huge.
-
Ya depending how this goes I could definately see myself going that route.
So many wasted resources with windows.
-
@Sparkum said in I did a thing, have a quick Linux question:
Ya depending how this goes I could definately see myself going that route.
So many wasted resources with windows.
I've got a Linux ISO with its name on it... Just gotta find the time to get one last backup done, lol.
-
@Sparkum said in I did a thing, have a quick Linux question:
Ya depending how this goes I could definately see myself going that route.
So many wasted resources with windows.
You aren't wrong
-
Are you able to group harddrives in a non raid format with linux?
Like a stablebit drive pool for linux kind of thing?
Versus making raid 0
-
@Sparkum said in I did a thing, have a quick Linux question:
Are you able to group harddrives in a non raid format with linux?
Like a stablebit drive pool for linux kind of thing?
Versus making raid 0
I know that you're asking @dafyre but just use ZFS. Software raid on Linux in the modern world has very little overhead.
-
@Sparkum said in I did a thing, have a quick Linux question:
Are you able to group harddrives in a non raid format with linux?
Like a stablebit drive pool for linux kind of thing?
Versus making raid 0
Why would you do this, when you could use MD Raid and have a highly resilient solution?
-
-
I've got my important media and my "who the heck cares" media.
-
@Sparkum said in I did a thing, have a quick Linux question:
I've got my important media and my "who the heck cares" media.
the Who the heck media you could still put onto RAID0 array.
-
I'd rather lose 1 disk and 2TB versus lose 1 disk and 6TB
-
@Sparkum said in I did a thing, have a quick Linux question:
I've got my important media and my "who the heck cares" media.
You raid 0 for speed
-
RAID0 would give you a lot of read/write performance while not caring if you lose a drive (as the data is gone anyways)
-
@Sparkum said in I did a thing, have a quick Linux question:
I'd rather lose 1 disk and 2TB versus lose 1 disk and 6TB
How many TB do you have that you can't lose?
-
@Sparkum said in I did a thing, have a quick Linux question:
I'd rather lose 1 disk and 2TB versus lose 1 disk and 6TB
I don't get this concept...
RAID0 you'd lose it all, no RAID you'd have no "protection" of a drive failing either.
So unless you mean to mirror the drives in a separate mechanism for protection, while not getting any benefit of RAID, you have a backup.
-
I'd say 8-10TB
-
@Sparkum said in I did a thing, have a quick Linux question:
I'd say 8-10TB
and how much total? Also how quickly are you going to expand?
-
Well what are we talking here, for me it would be (atleast) 3 2TB drives, so you are saying make 1 giant 6TB raid 0 correct?
So 1 drive dies I lose 6TB
Or are you saying make 3 2TB Raid 0's so that if I lose 1 I only lose 2TB
Can I then make it appear to be one disk though?And please keep in mind there might just not be a linux thing I dont know.
For example in Windows I have stablebit drive pool pooling my drives so that if I lose 1 drive I only lose the data on that one drive.
-
Total (used and unused) I'm sitting at 22TB.
And I'd say I'm expanding fast enough that I felt I needed 22TB, have 6TB free, had prob 12TB+ free 6 months ago.
Offloading some junk to the cloud though currently.
