On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 8:32 AM Jamie Fargen wrote:
>
> Not familiar with DejaDup, but with this setup on RAID0 do an rsync every 15
> minutes to the backup system.
rsync has some advantages: destination does not need to be btrfs, the
--inplace option for VM images
But for such very frequent ba
la, 2022-02-12 kello 11:32 -0400, Jamie Fargen kirjoitti:
> Not familiar with DejaDup, but with this setup on RAID0 do an rsync
> every
> 15 minutes to the backup system.
>
No. I've considered the options, and decided that a backup with Déjà
Dup once a day is good enough for me.
--
Terveisin /
Not familiar with DejaDup, but with this setup on RAID0 do an rsync every
15 minutes to the backup system.
Regards,
-Jamie
On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:38 AM Matti Pulkkinen wrote:
> to, 2022-02-10 kello 10:35 -0600, Thomas Cameron kirjoitti:
> >
> > Remember that with RAID0, if you lose ANY dri
Mostly trivia, but might help someone one day...
True that raid0 is basically for data you don't care about, if any
drive in the array dies, you lose everything. Except on Btrfs...
If the metadata profile is raid1 (or raid1c34), you will still lose
all the data on the failed drive. But you will b
to, 2022-02-10 kello 19:12 -0800, Gordon Messmer kirjoitti:
> It *probably* will, but I think there are conditions under which it
> wouldn't. One SSD might be able to saturate your controller for
> reads.
> Interleaved writes will probably improve, but that might depend on
> how
> many cells a
to, 2022-02-10 kello 10:35 -0600, Thomas Cameron kirjoitti:
>
> Remember that with RAID0, if you lose ANY drive, you lose the whole
> volume. RAID0 is great for increasing throughput, but it is the most
> risky RAID configuration possible. I would never run /home on RAID0
> unless I was doing s
On 2/10/22 11:19, John Mellor wrote:
SSDs have no appreciable seek time and have much faster read rates
that spinning rust. Depending upon how much onboard RAM cache they
provide (some even provide no cache), you may also see considerably
better burst write speed, although sustained write spee
On 2/10/22 08:35, Thomas Cameron wrote:
RAID0 is great for increasing throughput, but it is the most risky
RAID configuration possible. I would never run /home on RAID0 unless I
was doing something like two drives in RAID0 but doing nightly backups
to a third drive in case my RAID0 volume broke
On 2/10/22 08:11, Matti Pulkkinen wrote:
TL;DR are there particular workloads that suffer from having to access
a RAID0 array?
If uptime is excluded as a factor, then I'm not aware of any.
I've currently got my /home partition in a BTRFS RAID0 array with two 1
TB mechanical drives, and I'm
On 2022-02-10 11:11 a.m., Matti Pulkkinen wrote:
TL;DR are there particular workloads that suffer from having to access
a RAID0 array?
I've currently got my /home partition in a BTRFS RAID0 array with two 1
TB mechanical drives, and I'm considering getting SSDs for /home
instead. I could get on
On 2/10/22 10:11, Matti Pulkkinen wrote:
Hello,
TL;DR are there particular workloads that suffer from having to access
a RAID0 array?
I've currently got my /home partition in a BTRFS RAID0 array with two 1
TB mechanical drives, and I'm considering getting SSDs for /home
instead. I could get one
On Thu, 2022-02-10 at 18:11 +0200, Matti Pulkkinen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> TL;DR are there particular workloads that suffer from having to
> access
> a RAID0 array?
>
> I've currently got my /home partition in a BTRFS RAID0 array with two
> 1
> TB mechanical drives, and I'm considering getting SSDs f
Hello,
TL;DR are there particular workloads that suffer from having to access
a RAID0 array?
I've currently got my /home partition in a BTRFS RAID0 array with two 1
TB mechanical drives, and I'm considering getting SSDs for /home
instead. I could get one 2 TB SSD and be happy with it, but I could
13 matches
Mail list logo
