>> -Original Message-
>> From: Rich Freeman
>> Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2021 9:50 AM
>> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
>> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Synchronous writes over the network.
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 12:39 PM Mark Knech
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Wols Lists
>> Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2021 9:54 AM
>> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
>> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Synchronous writes over the network.
>>
>> > As always I'm interested in your co
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Wols Lists
>> Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2021 2:29 PM
>> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
>> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Synchronous writes over the network.
>>
>> On 23/12/2021 21:50, Mark Knec
On 23/12/2021 21:50, Mark Knecht wrote:
In the case of astrophotography I will have multiple copies of the
original photos. The process of stacking the individual photos can
create gigabytes of intermediate files but as long as the originals
are safe then it's just a matter of starting over. In
On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 10:27 AM Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 11:56 AM Mark Knecht wrote:
> >
>
> > Instead
> > of a ZIL in machine 1 the SSD becomes a ZLOG cache most likely holding
> > a cached copy of the currently active astrophotography projects.
>
> I think you're
On 23/12/2021 16:56, Mark Knecht wrote:
Rich & Wols,
Thanks for the responses. I'll post a single response here. I had
thought of the need to mirror the ZIL but didn't have enough physical
disk slots in the backup machine for the 2nd SSD. I do think this is a
critical point if I was to use
On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 12:39 PM Mark Knecht wrote:
>
> I'll respond to Rich's points in a bit but on this point I think
> you're both right - new SSDs are very very reliable and I'm not overly
> worried, but it seems a given that forcing more and more writes to an
> SSD has to up the probability
On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 10:35 AM Wols Lists wrote:
>
> On 23/12/2021 17:26, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > Plus it is an SSD that you're forcing a lot of writes
> > through, so that is going to increase your risk of failure at some
> > point.
>
> A lot of people can't get away from the fact that early
On 23/12/2021 17:26, Rich Freeman wrote:
Plus it is an SSD that you're forcing a lot of writes
through, so that is going to increase your risk of failure at some
point.
A lot of people can't get away from the fact that early SSDs weren't
that good. And I won't touch micro-SD for that reason.
On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 11:56 AM Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>Thanks for the responses. I'll post a single response here. I had
> thought of the need to mirror the ZIL but didn't have enough physical
> disk slots in the backup machine for the 2nd SSD. I do think this is a
> critical point if I was
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 12:52 PM Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 1:52 PM Mark Knecht wrote:
> >
> > I've recently built 2 TrueNAS file servers. The first (and main) unit
> > runs all the time and serves to backup my home user machines.
> > Generally speaking I (currently) put
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 2:52 PM Wols Lists wrote:
>
> And it might also mean blocking writes, which is why you don't want it
> on spinning rust. But it also means that it is (almost) guaranteed to
> get to permanent storage, which is why you do want it for mail,
> databases, etc.
>
The reason
On 20/12/2021 18:52, Mark Knecht wrote:
The thing is that the ZIL is only used for synchronous writes and I
don't know whether anything I'm doing to back up my user machines,
which currently is just rsync commands, is synchronous or could be
made synchronous, and I do not know if the NFS writes
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 1:52 PM Mark Knecht wrote:
>
> I've recently built 2 TrueNAS file servers. The first (and main) unit
> runs all the time and serves to backup my home user machines.
> Generally speaking I (currently) put data onto it using rsync but it
> also has an NFS mount that serves
14 matches
Mail list logo
