Howdy,
I got my 10TB drive in today. I want to maximize the amount of data I
can put on this thing and it remain stable. I know about -m 0 when
making the file system but was wondering if there is any other tips or
tricks to make the most of the drive space. This is the output of cgdisk.
Part. # Size Partition Type Partition Name
---------------------------------------------------------------- 1007.0 KiB free space
1 9.1 TiB Linux filesystem 10Tb 1007.5 KiB free space
I'm not sure why there seems to be two alignment spots. Is that
normal? Already, there is almost 1TB lost somewhere. Any way to
increase that and still be safe? Right now, I've ran the short test and
it is chewing on the long test. It will be done around 7AM tomorrow, 19
or 20 hours to complete. As it is, there's no data on it or even a file system either. Now is the time to tweak things.
Any tips or ideas would be appreciated.
Dale
:-) :-)
Part. # Size Partition Type Partition Name ----------------------------------------------------------------
1007.0 KiB free space
1 9.1 TiB Linux filesystem 10Tb
1007.5 KiB free space
I'm not sure why there seems to be two alignment spots. Is that
normal? Already, there is almost 1TB lost somewhere.
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 2:04 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
10 TB = 9.09495 TiB. You aren't missing much of anything.
Part. # Size Partition Type Partition Name
----------------------------------------------------------------
1007.0 KiB free space
1 9.1 TiB Linux filesystem 10Tb
1007.5 KiB free space
I'm not sure why there seems to be two alignment spots. Is that
normal? Already, there is almost 1TB lost somewhere.
And no, I don't want to get into a religious war over base 2 vs base
10, and why it would be confusing if a tape that could store 10MB/m
didn't store 10kB/mm but instead stored 10.24 kB/mm.
Rich Freeman wrote:[..]
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 2:04 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
10 TB = 9.09495 TiB. You aren't missing much of anything.
Part. # Size Partition Type Partition Name
1007.0 KiB free space
1 9.1 TiB Linux filesystem 10Tb
1007.5 KiB free space
I'm not sure why there seems to be two alignment spots. Is that
normal? Already, there is almost 1TB lost somewhere.
Well, I realize it would be less than advertised but I just want to
maximize it as much as I can. I found the -m option for the file system
a good while back and it saves a lot on these larger drives. Since this
is a external drive, no point in reserving any root space, since root
will likely never access it after the file system is put on it.
Related question. Does encryption slow the read/write speeds of a drive
down a fair amount? This new 10TB drive is maxing out at about
49.51MB/s or so.
Howdy,
Related question. Does encryption slow the read/write speeds of a
drive down a fair amount?
This new 10TB drive is maxing out at about 49.51MB/s or so. I actually copied that from the progress of rsync and a nice sized file.
It's been running over 24 hours now so I'd think buffer and cache
would be well done with. LOL
It did pass both a short and long self test. I used cryptsetup -s
512 to encrypt with, nice password too. My rig has a FX-8350 8 core
running at 4GHz CPU and 32GBs of memory. The CPU is fairly busy.
A little more than normal anyway. Keep in mind, I have two encrypted
drives connected right now.
Just curious if that speed is normal or not.
Thoughts?
Dale
:-) :-)
P. S. The pulled drive I bought had like 60 hours on it. Dang near
new.
Howdy,
Related question. Does encryption slow the read/write speeds of a
drive down a fair amount?
This new 10TB drive is maxing out at about 49.51MB/s or so.
I actually copied that from the progress of rsync and a nice sized
file. It's been running over 24 hours now so I'd think buffer and
cache would be well done with. LOL
It did pass both a short and long self test. I used cryptsetup -s 512
to encrypt with, nice password too. My rig has a FX-8350 8 core running
at 4GHz CPU and 32GBs of memory. The CPU is fairly busy. A little more than normal anyway. Keep in mind, I have two encrypted drives connected right now.
Just curious if that speed is normal or not.
Thoughts?
P. S. The pulled drive I bought had like 60 hours on it. Dang near new.
Sorry for the duplicate post. I had an email client error that
accidentally caused me to hit send on the window I was composing in.
On 8/20/22 1:15 PM, Dale wrote:
Howdy,
Hi,
Related question. Does encryption slow the read/write speeds of a
drive down a fair amount?
My experience has been the opposite. I know that it's unintuitive
that encryption would make things faster. But my understanding is
that it alters how data is read from / written to the disk such that
it's done in more optimized batches and / or optimized caching.
This was so surprising that I decrypted a drive / re-encrypted a drive multiple times to compare things to come to the conclusion that
encryption was noticeably better.
Plus, encryption has the advantage of destroying the key rendering the
drive safe to use independent of the data that was on it.
N.B. The actual encryption key is encrypted with the passphrase. The passphrase isn't the encryption key itself.
This new 10TB drive is maxing out at about 49.51MB/s or so.
I wonder if you are possibly running into performance issues related
to shingled drives. Their raw capacity comes at a performance penalty.
I actually copied that from the progress of rsync and a nice sized
file. It's been running over 24 hours now so I'd think buffer and
cache would be well done with. LOL
Ya, you have /probably/ exceeded the write back cache in the system's
memory.
It did pass both a short and long self test. I used cryptsetup -s 512
to encrypt with, nice password too. My rig has a FX-8350 8 core running
at 4GHz CPU and 32GBs of memory. The CPU is fairly busy. A little more >> than normal anyway. Keep in mind, I have two encrypted drives connected
right now.
The last time I looked at cryptsetup / LUKS, I found that there was a [kernel] process per encrypted block device.
A hack that I did while testing things was to slice up a drive into
multiple partitions, encrypt each one, and then re-aggregate the LUKS
devices as PVs in LVM. This surprisingly was a worthwhile performance boost.
Just curious if that speed is normal or not.
I suspect that your drive is FAR more the bottleneck than the
encryption itself is. There is a chance that the encryption's access pattern is exascerbating a drive performance issue.
Thoughts?
Conceptually working in 512 B blocks on a drive that is natively 4 kB sectors. Thus causing the drive to do lots of extra work to account
for the other seven 512 B blocks in a 4 kB sector.
P. S. The pulled drive I bought had like 60 hours on it. Dang near
new.
:-)
Grant Taylor wrote:
Sorry for the duplicate post. I had an email client error thatI figured it was something like that. ;-)
accidentally caused me to hit send on the window I was composing in.
On 8/20/22 1:15 PM, Dale wrote:This drive is not supposed to be SMR. It's a 10TB and according to a
Howdy,Hi,
Related question. Does encryption slow the read/write speeds of aMy experience has been the opposite. I know that it's unintuitive
drive down a fair amount?
that encryption would make things faster. But my understanding is
that it alters how data is read from / written to the disk such that
it's done in more optimized batches and / or optimized caching.
This was so surprising that I decrypted a drive / re-encrypted a drive
multiple times to compare things to come to the conclusion that
encryption was noticeably better.
Plus, encryption has the advantage of destroying the key rendering the
drive safe to use independent of the data that was on it.
N.B. The actual encryption key is encrypted with the passphrase. The
passphrase isn't the encryption key itself.
This new 10TB drive is maxing out at about 49.51MB/s or so.I wonder if you are possibly running into performance issues related
to shingled drives. Their raw capacity comes at a performance penalty.
site I looked on, none of them are SMR, yet. I found another site that
said it was CMR. So, pretty sure it isn't SMR. Nothing is 100% tho. I might add, it's been at about that speed since I started the backup. If
you have a better source of info, it's a WD model WD101EDBZ-11B1DA0 drive.
I noticed there is a kcrypt something thread running, a few actually butI actually copied that from the progress of rsync and a nice sizedYa, you have /probably/ exceeded the write back cache in the system's
file. It's been running over 24 hours now so I'd think buffer and
cache would be well done with. LOL
memory.
It did pass both a short and long self test. I used cryptsetup -s 512The last time I looked at cryptsetup / LUKS, I found that there was a
to encrypt with, nice password too. My rig has a FX-8350 8 core running >>> at 4GHz CPU and 32GBs of memory. The CPU is fairly busy. A little more >>> than normal anyway. Keep in mind, I have two encrypted drives connected >>> right now.
[kernel] process per encrypted block device.
A hack that I did while testing things was to slice up a drive into
multiple partitions, encrypt each one, and then re-aggregate the LUKS
devices as PVs in LVM. This surprisingly was a worthwhile performance
boost.
it's hard to keep up since I see it on gkrellm's top process list. The
CPU is running at about 40% or so average but I do have mplayer, a
couple Firefox profiles, Seamonkey and other stuff running as well. I
still got plenty of CPU pedal left if needed. Having Ktorrent and qbittorrent running together isn't helping. Thinking of switching
torrent software. Qbit does seem to use more memory tho.
I think the 512 has something to do with key size or something. Am IJust curious if that speed is normal or not.I suspect that your drive is FAR more the bottleneck than the
encryption itself is. There is a chance that the encryption's access
pattern is exascerbating a drive performance issue.
Thoughts?Conceptually working in 512 B blocks on a drive that is natively 4 kB
sectors. Thus causing the drive to do lots of extra work to account
for the other seven 512 B blocks in a 4 kB sector.
wrong on that? If I need to use 256 or something, I can. My
understanding was that 512 was stronger than 256 as far as the
encryption goes.
I'm going to try some tests Rich mentioned after it is done doing its backup. I don't want to stop it if I can avoid it. It's about half way through, give or take a little.P. S. The pulled drive I bought had like 60 hours on it. Dang near:-)
new.
Dale
:-) :-)
I figured it was something like that. ;-)
This drive is not supposed to be SMR. It's a 10TB and according to a
site I looked on, none of them are SMR, yet. I found another site that
said it was CMR. So, pretty sure it isn't SMR. Nothing is 100% tho.
I might add, it's been at about that speed since I started the backup.
If you have a better source of info, it's a WD model WD101EDBZ-11B1DA0
drive.
I noticed there is a kcrypt something thread running, a few actually
but it's hard to keep up since I see it on gkrellm's top process list.
The CPU is running at about 40% or so average but I do have mplayer,
a couple Firefox profiles, Seamonkey and other stuff running as well.
I still got plenty of CPU pedal left if needed. Having Ktorrent and qbittorrent running together isn't helping. Thinking of switching
torrent software. Qbit does seem to use more memory tho.
I think the 512 has something to do with key size or something.
Am I wrong on that? If I need to use 256 or something, I can.
My understanding was that 512 was stronger than 256 as far as the
encryption goes.
I'm going to try some tests Rich mentioned after it is done doing
its backup. I don't want to stop it if I can avoid it. It's about
half way through, give or take a little.
What are you measuring the speed with - hdparm or rsync or ?
hdparm is best for profiling just the harddisk (tallks to the interface
and can bypass the cache depending on settings, rsync/cp/?? usually have
the whole OS storage chain including encryption affecting throughput.
Encryption itself can be highly variable depending on what you use and usually though not always includes compression before encryption.
There are tools you can use to isolate where the slowdown occurs.
atop is another one that may help.
[test using a USB3 shingled drive on a 32 it arm system]
xu4 ~ # hdparm -Tt /dev/sda
/dev/sda:
Timing cached reads: 1596 MB in 2.00 seconds = 798.93 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 526 MB in 3.01 seconds = 174.99 MB/sec
xu4 ~ #
On 8/20/22 10:22 PM, William Kenworthy wrote:
...
If that is an Odroid XU4, then I strongly suspect that /dev/sda is
passing through a USB interface. So ... I'd take those numbers with a
grain of salt. -- If the system is working for you, then by all
means more power to you.
I found that my Odroid XU4 was /almost/ fast enough to be my daily
driver. But the fan would kick in for some things and I didn't care
for the noise of the stock fan. I've not yet compared contemporary Raspberry Pi 4 or other comparable systems.
Instruction set (ISA) ARMv7-A32 (32 bit)
Architecture Cortex-A15 / Cortex-A7
Yes, its an xu4 and as I mentioned, its a USB drive (seagate 4G backup
with an SMR inside) - works ok as a backup drive and the data transfer
is fast until you fill the cache - then its throughput is best
described as "miserable"! The xu4 lists as 32bit and odroid supplies
a 32 bit kernel etc - I just used their config as a base when building
gentoo onto it - its my build (for 5 xu4 based HC2 systems) and hosts
the backup drive. My attaching the hdparm run was an example of its
use, and that happened to be the terminal i was using at the time.
What are you measuring the speed with - hdparm or rsync or ?
hdparm is best for profiling just the harddisk (tallks to the
interface and can bypass the cache depending on settings, rsync/cp/??
usually have the whole OS storage chain including encryption affecting throughput. Encryption itself can be highly variable depending on
what you use and usually though not always includes compression before encryption. There are tools you can use to isolate where the slowdown occurs. atop is another one that may help.
[test using a USB3 shingled drive on a 32 it arm system]
xu4 ~ # hdparm -Tt /dev/sda
/dev/sda:
Timing cached reads: 1596 MB in 2.00 seconds = 798.93 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 526 MB in 3.01 seconds = 174.99 MB/sec
xu4 ~ #
BillK
William Kenworthy wrote:
What are you measuring the speed with - hdparm or rsync or ?I copied that from a fair sized file in rsync's progress output. I just picked one that was the highest in the last several files that were on
hdparm is best for profiling just the harddisk (tallks to the
interface and can bypass the cache depending on settings, rsync/cp/??
usually have the whole OS storage chain including encryption affecting
throughput. Encryption itself can be highly variable depending on
what you use and usually though not always includes compression before
encryption. There are tools you can use to isolate where the slowdown
occurs. atop is another one that may help.
[test using a USB3 shingled drive on a 32 it arm system]
xu4 ~ # hdparm -Tt /dev/sda
/dev/sda:
Timing cached reads: 1596 MB in 2.00 seconds = 798.93 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 526 MB in 3.01 seconds = 174.99 MB/sec
xu4 ~ #
BillK
the screen, without scrolling back. No file system with compression
since compressing video files doesn't help much. Just ext4 on encrypted
LVM on a single partition.
I tell you tho, this new drive is filling up pretty darn fast. I got to build a NAS or something here. Thing is, how to put it somewhere it is protected and all. A NAS won't exactly fit in my fire safe. :/ Bigger fire safe maybe???? o_O
Dale
:-) :-)
Note that 60ish MB/sec is very reasonable for a rotational drive. They *can* technically go faster, but only if you keep the workload almost entirely sequential. Most filesystems require a fair amount of seeking to write metadata, which slows themdown quite a bit.
If you're desperate for performance, you can do things like tell it to ignore write barriers and turn off various bits of flushing and increase the amount of allowed dirty write cache. These can be good for a significant performance boost at the costof almost certainly corrupting the filesystem if the system loses power or crashes.
That’s a WD Red Plus. WD introduced the Plus series after the SMR debacle do
differentiate between the „now normal“ WD Reds which can (or maybe always)
have SMR and the Plus, which are always CMR.
This new 10TB drive is maxing out at about 49.51MB/s or so.
I wonder if you are possibly running into performance issues related
to shingled drives. Their raw capacity comes at a performance penalty.
This drive is not supposed to be SMR. […] If you have a better source of info, it's a WD model WD101EDBZ-11B1DA0 drive.
Conceptually working in 512 B blocks on a drive that is natively 4 kB sectors. Thus causing the drive to do lots of extra work to account
for the other seven 512 B blocks in a 4 kB sector.
I think the 512 has something to do with key size or something. Am I
wrong on that? If I need to use 256 or something, I can. My
understanding was that 512 was stronger than 256 as far as the
encryption goes.
Hello,
On Thu, 18 Aug 2022, Dale wrote:
Rich Freeman wrote:[..]
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 2:04 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
10 TB = 9.09495 TiB. You aren't missing much of anything.
Part. # Size Partition Type Partition Name
1007.0 KiB free space
1 9.1 TiB Linux filesystem 10Tb
1007.5 KiB free space
I'm not sure why there seems to be two alignment spots. Is that
normal? Already, there is almost 1TB lost somewhere.
Also, if you're using ext2/3/4, there's the preset, i.e. if you're
rather sure about what kind of data is going to be on there, you
can tune it so that it reserves more or less place for metadata like
inodes, which can be another bit.
On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 3:15 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
Related question. Does encryption slow the read/write speeds of a driveEncryption won't impact the write speeds themselves of course, but it
down a fair amount? This new 10TB drive is maxing out at about
49.51MB/s or so.
could introduce a CPU bottleneck. If you don't have any cores pegged
at 100% though I'd say this isn't happening. On x86 encrypting a hard
drive shouldn't be a problem. I have seen it become a bottleneck on
something like a Pi4 if the encryption isn't directly supported in
hardware by the CPU.
50MB/s is reasonable if you have an IOPS-limited workload. It is of
course a bit low for something that is bandwidth-limited. If you want
to test that I'm not sure rsync is a great way to go. I'd pause that
(ctrl-z is fine), then verify that all disk IO goes to zero (might
take 30s to clear out the cache). Then I'd use "time dd bs=1M
count=20000 if=/dev/zero of=/path/to/drive/test" to measure how long
it takes to create a 20GB file. Oh, this assumes you're not using a filesystem that can detect all-zeros and compress or make the file
sparse. If you get crazy-fast results then I'd do a test like copying
a single large file with cp and timing that.
Make sure your disk has no IO before testing. If you have two
processes accessing at once then you're going to get a huge drop in performance on a spinning disk. That includes one writing process and
one reading one, unless the reads all hit the cache.
[..]When I format a partition (and I usually use ext4, with some f2fs mingled in on flash bashed devices), I always set the inode count myself, because the default was always much too high. Like 15 m on a 40 GiB partition or so. My arch root partition has 2 m inodes in total, 34 % of which are in use for a full-fledged KDE setup. That’s sufficient.
Also, if you're using ext2/3/4, there's the preset, i.e. if you're
rather sure about what kind of data is going to be on there, you
can tune it so that it reserves more or less place for metadata like
inodes, which can be another bit.
On Gentoo, I might give it some more for the ever-growing portage directory. But even a few percent on a 10 TB drive amount to many gigabytes.
I've already got data on the drive now with the default settings so it
is to late for the moment however, I expect to need to add drives
later. Keep in mind, I use LVM which means I grow file systems quite
often by adding drives. I don't know if that grows inodes or not. I
suspect it does somehow.
On 25/8/22 06:45, Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
Keep in mind ext4 is created with a fixed number of inodes - you cant[..]When I format a partition (and I usually use ext4, with some f2fs
Also, if you're using ext2/3/4, there's the preset, i.e. if you're
rather sure about what kind of data is going to be on there, you
can tune it so that it reserves more or less place for metadata like
inodes, which can be another bit.
mingled in
on flash bashed devices), I always set the inode count myself,
because the
default was always much too high. Like 15 m on a 40 GiB partition or
so. My
arch root partition has 2 m inodes in total, 34 % of which are in use
for a
full-fledged KDE setup. That’s sufficient.
On Gentoo, I might give it some more for the ever-growing portage
directory.
But even a few percent on a 10 TB drive amount to many gigabytes.
change it once its created so you have to deal with reformatting the filesystem and replacing the data. Just another reason to use
something more modern - running out of inodes, especially on a large
disk is not a minor matter as you have to find somewhere to copy/store
the data so you can reformat the disk with more inodes and then put it back. I seem to remember the last time it happened to me (its not an uncommon event) I had to deal with mass corruption too.
On the other hand, at one inode per file and Dale primarily storing
large media files it may be safe to reduce them.
BillK
On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 8:43 AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
I've already got data on the drive now with the default settings so itIt does not. It just means that if you want to reformat it you have
is to late for the moment however, I expect to need to add drives
later. Keep in mind, I use LVM which means I grow file systems quite
often by adding drives. I don't know if that grows inodes or not. I
suspect it does somehow.
to reformat all the drives in the LVM logical volume. :)
While at it, can I move the drives on LVM to another system without
having to copy anything? Just physically move the drives and LVM see
them correctly on the new system?
While at it, can I move the drives on LVM to another system without
having to copy anything? Just physically move the drives and LVM see
them correctly on the new system? I may try to build a small computer
for a NAS soon. I'm not sure what is the least I can buy that will
perform well. I need to look into small mobos to see what options I
have. I mostly need a CPU to handle moving files, memory to pass it
through and lots of SATA ports. I figure a fast card for most SATA ports.
I may do some mobo hunting shortly. See what little thing I can buy
that is powerful enough. I don't think a Raspberry Pi is enough. It
gets close tho. Biggest thing, I'd need a lot of SATA ports. LOTS of
them.
Wols Lists wrote:
On 25/08/2022 19:59, Dale wrote:It seems I've been to that link before, may even have it bookmarked, somewhere. I'll give it another read tho. After all, it has to be good
While at it, can I move the drives on LVM to another system without
having to copy anything? Just physically move the drives and LVM see
them correctly on the new system? I may try to build a small computer
for a NAS soon. I'm not sure what is the least I can buy that will
perform well. I need to look into small mobos to see what options I
have. I mostly need a CPU to handle moving files, memory to pass it
through and lots of SATA ports. I figure a fast card for most SATA
ports.
https://raid.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Linux_Raid
That might be a good read ... I know I push it a bit, but it does go
into disk management a decent bit.
If you can think of any improvements, they'll be welcome! :-)
or you wouldn't share it. ;-)
Jack wrote:[..]
Related question - how much space would you actually save by
decreasing the number of inodes by 90%? Enough for one or two more
videos?
Now I have to admit, that is a question I have too.
I looked at something called ITX but they have only one PCIe slot
usually. That's not enough. I'd like to have two 6 or 8 port SATA cards. Then balance the drives on each. I think some of the through
put is shared so the more drives on it, the slower it can be. I'd
like to have two such cards. 12 or 16 drives should be enough to last
a while. Part of me wants to do RAID but not sure about that. Yet.
I think I'm just going to go with ATX since it has several PCIe
slots.
I looked into the Raspberry and the newest version, about $150 now, doesn't even have SATA ports.
I looked into the Raspberry and the newest version, about $150 now,doesn't even have SATA ports. I can add a thing called a "hat" I think
I have a old computer that I might could use. It is 4 core something andI think it has 4GBs of memory, maxed out. I think it will perform well
I think it's saved a lot of bacon over the years:-) Even if I'veI see typos. Do they matter to you?
mostly edited it. I haven't written much of it from scratch.
Cheers,
Wol
Obviously you can do what you are most comfortable with but to me a NAS machine with a bunch of external drives does not sound very reliable.
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 10:09 AM Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:machine with a bunch of external drives does not sound very reliable.
Obviously you can do what you are most comfortable with but to me a NAS
I would have thought the same, but messing around with LizardFS I've
found that the USB3 hard drives never disconnect from their Pi4 hosts.
I've had more issues with LSI HBAs dying. Of course I have host-level redundancy so if one Pi4 flakes out I can just reboot it with zero
downtime - the master server is on an amd64 container. I only have
about 2 drives per Pi right now as well - at this point I'd probably
add more drives per host but I wanted to get out to 5-6 hosts first so
that I get better performance especially during rebuilds. Gigabit
networking is definitely a bottleneck, but with all the chunkservers
on one switch they each get gigabit full duplex to all the others so
rebuilds are still reasonably fast. To go with 10GbE you'd need
hardware with better IO than a Pi4 I'd think, but the main bottleneck
on the Pi4 I'm having is with encryption which hits the CPU. I am
using dm-crypt for this which I think is hardware-optimized. I will
say that zfs encryption is definitely not hardware-optimized and
really gets CPU-bound, so I'm running zfs on top of dm-crypt. I
should probably consider if dm-integrity makes more sense than zfs in
this application.
--
Rich
<div>or foreign actors invading my world. (Even though I'm sure they could.) I</div><div>just have a router-based firewall. My backup machines are powered down</div><div>unless they are being used and they don't respond to wake-up over the</encryption at all. A real dummy...</div><div><br></div><div>But again, I'm not even a Gentoo user any more. I'm a KDE user</div><div>and I could see no performance improvement using Gentoo over</div><div>Kubuntu. My updates happen once a week,
<div>network so they are safe enough for me. The one in my office backs up</div><div>my two machines (desktop and video file server) and the second</div><div>NAS backs up the first. They are both ZFS RAID1 using TrueNAS. I</div><div>don't use
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 4:21 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:sticks and basically, you shut it down, upgrade the USB stick, insert it
<SNIP>
I have looked into OpenNAS and other NAS OS stuff. Some are on USB
<SNIP>so I'm fairly confident you'd be at least functional.
The first version of TrueNAS I used was on a USB stick and it worked fine
rdalek1967@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> ><br>> <SNIP><br>> > I have looked into OpenNAS and other NAS OS stuff. Some are on USB sticks and basically, you shut it down, upgrade the USB stick, insert it back into NAS and boot up.<do buy a used MB do some research into whether it will actually boot from USB. One of the ones I bought actually did not do that so I had to dig up a old DVD drive to install from a CD.</div><div><br></div><div>- M</div></div></div>
> <SNIP><br>><br>> The first version of TrueNAS I used was on a USB stick and it worked fine so I'm fairly confident you'd be at least functional.<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>One last thing for now - if you
I have looked into OpenNAS and other NAS OS stuff. Some are on USBsticks and basically, you shut it down, upgrade the USB stick, insert it
Mark Knecht wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 4:37 PM Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com
<mailto:markknecht@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 4:21 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com
<mailto:rdalek1967@gmail.com>> wrote:
<SNIP>
I have looked into OpenNAS and other NAS OS stuff. Some are on
USB sticks and basically, you shut it down, upgrade the USB stick,
insert it back into NAS and boot up.
<SNIP>
The first version of TrueNAS I used was on a USB stick and it worked
fine so I'm fairly confident you'd be at least functional.
One last thing for now - if you do buy a used MB do some research into whether it will actually boot from USB. One of the ones I bought
actually did not do that so I had to dig up a old DVD drive to install
from a CD.
- M
I've got a older donated machine that doesn't boot from USB too. The
newer donated machine does, I've booted from USB sticks before. I'm
going to pull the side off and see how many drives it can hold and such
in a bit. If I gather up enough steam. As it is, I only need three at
the moment, four maybe later. Most come with six but this is a factory
built machine. I can't recall what it comes with.
Dale
:-) :-)
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 4:27 AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
I looked into the Raspberry and the newest version, about $150 now,doesn't even have SATA ports. I can add a thing called a "hat" I think
that adds a couple but thing is, that costs more and still isn't enough. I really don't like USB and hard drive mixing. Every time I do that, the
hard drive turns into a door stop. Currently, I have three Rosewill
external enclosures and they have USB and eSATA ports. I use the eSATA connections and no problems. It's also really fast. So, I plan to stick with SATA connections.
You do NOT want the Rasp Pi for this. You would have to compile and
maintain the OS yourself just adding work and the disk interfaces aren't
high performance enough.
The speed of a NAS is _mostly_ a balance between network speed and disk speed. Processor usage for me is generally about 20%. If your network is GigaBit then you can sustain somewhere about 850Mb/S on the cables which translates nicely to about 100 MegaByte/S on your disk drives.
I looked into the Raspberry and the newest version, about $150 now,
doesn't even have SATA ports. I can add a thing called a "hat" I think
that adds a couple but thing is, that costs more and still isn't
enough.
I have a old computer that I might could use. It is 4 core something
and I think it has 4GBs of memory, maxed out. I think it will perform
well enough but wish it had a little more horses in it.
I looked at something called ITX but they have only one PCIe slot
usually. That's not enough. I'd like to have two 6 or 8 port SATA cards. Then balance the drives on each. I think some of the through
put is shared so the more drives on it, the slower it can be. I'd like
to have two such cards. 12 or 16 drives should be enough to last a
while.
Part of me wants to do RAID but not sure about that.
While I don't think I need a super powerful machine, I do want enough
that it will perform well.
I may use actual NAS software too.
I'm sure Gentoo would work to with proper tweaking but then I need to
deal with compiling things. Of course, no libreoffice or anything big so
it may not be to bad. Thing is, the NAS software will likely be more efficient since it is designed for the purpose.
I just know I need a proper machine for the task. I'm getting lots of
data fast now. I hit the 80% mark overnight. At 90%, I consider it critical. Something must be done soon.
Is there a particular reason why your mailer inserts the quote character
only on the first line of a quote paragraph? It makes reading your replies a little difficult because it is not visible on first glance where your quote ends and your reply starts.
On 28/08/2022 22:07, Frank Steinmetzger wrote:replies a
Is there a particular reason why your mailer inserts the quote character only on the first line of a quote paragraph? It makes reading your
quotelittle difficult because it is not visible on first glance where your
ends and your reply starts.
Because the OPs mailer sent it as one line per paragraph?
My mailer (Tbird) is configured for plain text, but still screws up when
it receives html junk.
Cheers,
Wol
<br></div><div>My address is GMail, and I just use Chrome. Responding to this list</div><div>requires me to Ctrl-A and then remove ALL formatting which inserts </div><div>the greater than symbol.</div><div><br></div><div>For 99% of my life no onecares about how an email response is </div><div>formatted. The only place that complains is this list so I do all of</div><div>that above to try to make it better for the list. </div><div><br></div><div>Maybe I made a mistake on the recent response
</div>
On Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 2:33 PM Wol <antlists@youngman.org.uk <mailto:antlists@youngman.org.uk>> wrote:
On 28/08/2022 22:07, Frank Steinmetzger wrote:character
Is there a particular reason why your mailer inserts the quote
replies aonly on the first line of a quote paragraph? It makes reading your
your quotelittle difficult because it is not visible on first glance where
ends and your reply starts.
Because the OPs mailer sent it as one line per paragraph?
My mailer (Tbird) is configured for plain text, but still screws up when it receives html junk.
Cheers,
Wol
My address is GMail, and I just use Chrome. Responding to this list
requires me to Ctrl-A and then remove ALL formatting which inserts
the greater than symbol.
For 99% of my life no one cares about how an email response is
formatted. The only place that complains is this list so I do all of
that above to try to make it better for the list.
Maybe I made a mistake on the recent response that Frank
doesn't like? If it's happening on every email I send then what
Frank is seeing is not what I'm seeing.
In my experience it's easier to ride the Google horse in the
direction the Google horse is going. Turning off all formatting
causes too many problems in real life outside of Gentoo
email lists.
My apologies,
Mark
I run a raspi with some basic services, most importantly a pihole DNS filter
and a PIM server. But I find it hacky-patchy with its flimsy USB power cable
poking out of the side. I’d prefer a more sturdy construction, which is why
I bought a NAS-style PC (zotac zbox nano with a passive 6 W Celeron). But that thing is so fast for every-day computing that I actually put a KDE system on it and now I don’t want to “downgrade” it to a mere server.
I googled that little guy and that is a pretty neat little machine. Basically it is a tiny puter but really tiny, just not tiny on
features. The Zotac systems, even some older ones, are pretty nifty. I think I read they have a ITX mobo which is really compact.
It sort of reminds me of a cell phone. Small but fast CPUs, some even
have decent amounts of ram so they can handle quite a lot. Never heard of this thing before. I wouldn't mind having one of those to work as my OpenVPN server thingy. I'd just need to find one that has 2 ethernet
ports and designed for that sort of task.
I have a old computer that I might could use. It is 4 core somethingAn Intel Celeron from the Haswell generation (i.e. 8+ years old) did not have AES-NI yet, and it reached around 160 MB/s encryption speed. I tried it, because I had dealings with those processors in the past before I built my own NAS. Your old tech may still be usable, but please also consider power cost and its impact on the environment if it runs 24/7.
and I think it has 4GBs of memory, maxed out. I think it will perform
well enough but wish it had a little more horses in it.
I'm not real sure what that old machine has. I have Linux, can't recall
the distro tho, on it. Is there a way to find out if it supports the
needed things?
I may use actual NAS software too.What is “actual NAS software”? Do you mean a NAS distribution? From my understanding, those distros install the usual services (samba, ftp, etc.) and develop a nice web frontend for it. But since those are web applications, there isn’t much to be gained from march=native.
I've seen TrueNAS, OpenNas I think and others. Plus some just use
Ubuntu or something. Honestly, almost any linux distro with no or a
minimal GUI would work.
I'm sure Gentoo would work to with proper tweaking but then I need to >> deal with compiling things. Of course, no libreoffice or anything big so >> it may not be to bad. Thing is, the NAS software will likely be moreMore efficient than what?
efficient since it is designed for the purpose.
I figure something like OpenNAS or TrueNAS would work better as it is
built to be user friendly and has tools by default to manage things.
I'm pretty sure they support RAID and such by default. It is likely set
up to make setting it up easier too.
It sort of reminds me of a cell phone. Small but fast CPUs, some evenMany of the ZBoxes have dual NICs, which is what makes them very popular among server and firewall hackers because they are also very frugal. My particular model is the CI331: https://www.zotac.com/us/product/mini_pcs/zbox-ci331-nano-barebone
have decent amounts of ram so they can handle quite a lot. Never heard of
this thing before. I wouldn't mind having one of those to work as my
OpenVPN server thingy. I'd just need to find one that has 2 ethernet
ports and designed for that sort of task.
It has one 2,5″ slot and one undocumented SATA M.2 which can only be reached
by breaking the warranty seal. That’s where zotac installs a drive if you buy a zbox with Winblows pre-installed.
After updating the BIOS, which allowed the CPU to enter lower C states, it draws 6 W on idle. It’s not a record, but still not so much for a 24/7 x86
system.
I was looking for one with two ethernet ports but wasn't having any luck yet. I did find and download like a catalog thing but it will take a
while to dig through it. They have a lot of models for different
purposes.
I did see a pre-made thing on ebay but can't recall the brand that cost hundreds that was made just for VPNs and such.
It was really pricey tho. But, you plug it in, boot it up and it had evrything installed and then some to control networks traffic. It had
stuff I never heard of.
cat /proc/cpuinfo and look for aes or the like.I'm not real sure what that old machine has. I have Linux, can't recall >> the distro tho, on it. Is there a way to find out if it supports theI have a old computer that I might could use. It is 4 core something >>>> and I think it has 4GBs of memory, maxed out. I think it will perform >>>> well enough but wish it had a little more horses in it.
needed things?
I have booted that old thing up and I grepped cpuinfo and no AES that I
could see or grep could find. Must be before it's time.
While I had it booted up, I checked into what all it did have. It only
has 4 SATA ports, one already used for the OS hard drive. I could
likely run it from a USB stick which would make all 4 available. It has 8GBs of memory too. CPU is a AMD Phenom 9750 Quad running at 2.4GHz. I found it add that cpuinfo showed a different speed I think.
It's not a speedster or anything but I may can do something with it.
I'm pretty sure they support RAID and such by default. It is likely set >> up to make setting it up easier too.They do, naturally. And yes, the frontends hide lots of the gory details.
That's my thinking since RAID, ZFS and such are new to me. Of course,
front ends do take away a lot of fine controls too, usually.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 303 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 76:32:44 |
| Calls: | 6,805 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,327 |
| Messages: | 5,400,222 |