Unraid Podcast!


Unraid Pod  

142 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Helmonder said:

The following would be a great addition:

 

I have an Unraid server running with 74 Terabyte total space. The extreme most of that is for movies/series from long ago.. I might not ever be looking at them. And with netflix, amazon prime and other services I honoustly make less use of it then I used to.

 

In an effort to try and bring down electricity usage from an environmental perspective I am pondering the following:

 

What if the cache drive would not be emptied by the mover totally at a certain point in time but it would move everything -older- then a certain point in time.

 

That would keep all my new content for a specific timeslot available on the cache drive, I could watch all my series and stuff from the cache drive, stuff older then something like a month would be offloaded to the array and disks would remain spun down for a long time there..

 

Seems like a relatively easy thing to do.. ?

 

 

 

 

 

Cancel that request :-)

 

It already exists:  

 

Amazing...

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Helmonder said:

The following would be a great addition:

 

I have an Unraid server running with 74 Terabyte total space. The extreme most of that is for movies/series from long ago.. I might not ever be looking at them. And with netflix, amazon prime and other services I honoustly make less use of it then I used to.

 

In an effort to try and bring down electricity usage from an environmental perspective I am pondering the following:

 

What if the cache drive would not be emptied by the mover totally at a certain point in time but it would move everything -older- then a certain point in time.

 

That would keep all my new content for a specific timeslot available on the cache drive, I could watch all my series and stuff from the cache drive, stuff older then something like a month would be offloaded to the array and disks would remain spun down for a long time there..

 

Seems like a relatively easy thing to do.. ?

 

 

 

 

Let me introduce you to Mover Tuning....   Then open your wallet for a very large SSD drive to take the most advantage of spinning down drives.

 

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, hugenbdd said:

Let me introduce you to Mover Tuning....   Then open your wallet for a very large SSD drive to take the most advantage of spinning down drives.

 

 

 

Ahead of you :-)

 

I also noticed that and changed my post... And at the moment I am actually checking out SSD's :-)

 

ROFL !

  • Like 1
Link to comment
On 5/5/2021 at 1:38 PM, kizer said:

Personally I do mean personally. I think Podcasts should be a mixed bag of topics. Possibly reviews of Plugins, dockers, future content on and on. 

I think if you stick with one particular subject you might entertain some and bore others. 

 

Definitely will be.  Each episode will be a mixed bag.  The first episode was just setting the stage for things to come and to act as a reference point for content we intend to cover in other episodes.  30 minutes is roughly the length we want to keep these to not drag on too long, though there may be exceptions for special guests/events.

 

On 5/5/2021 at 1:52 PM, jonathanm said:

I'm being lazy and asking without searching first, so feel free to shame me.

 

Is there a transcript somewhere of these? I'd rather read than listen.

 

No transcripts and unless we can find an automated service to do that, I do not intend to provide them.  I appreciate the desire to read, but for me to sit and literally transcribe everything said in an episode.......I'd rather watch paint dry ;-)

 

On 5/7/2021 at 3:07 AM, Helmonder said:

The following would be a great addition:

 

I have an Unraid server running with 74 Terabyte total space. The extreme most of that is for movies/series from long ago.. I might not ever be looking at them. And with netflix, amazon prime and other services I honoustly make less use of it then I used to.

 

In an effort to try and bring down electricity usage from an environmental perspective I am pondering the following:

 

What if the cache drive would not be emptied by the mover totally at a certain point in time but it would move everything -older- then a certain point in time.

 

That would keep all my new content for a specific timeslot available on the cache drive, I could watch all my series and stuff from the cache drive, stuff older then something like a month would be offloaded to the array and disks would remain spun down for a long time there..

 

Seems like a relatively easy thing to do.. ?

 

I kind of see what you're saying, but I think the power savings you would potentially gain there would be so miniscule that it wouldn't add up to anything significant.  We already only spin up the drive you need in order to read content as required, saving as much power as possible.  For us to add this option to the cache would honestly confuse a lot of people and not add enough value to warrant marketing it as a feature.

 

If your drives and SSDs were active 100% of the time, SSDs typically draw about 1/3 the power of an HDD (using rough numbers, let's assume 2 watts for active SSDs and 6 for active HDDs).  When not in use, HDDs and SSDs barely draw any power.  So it's only ACTIVE usage that you see this 66% reduction in power consumption.  So let's say you watch 3 movies a day for a week straight, each movie being 2 hrs long.  That's 6 hours of active use time.  So for a single HDD, that's 36 watt hours and for an SSD that's 12 watt hours.  Using a rough guideline of 10 cents per kilowatt hour, that's $0.0036 for a weeks worth of movie watching on HDDs and $0.0012 for SSDs.  Extrapolate that to a full year (multiply by 52 weeks) and you have $0.19 for the HDDs and $0.06 for SSDs.

 

Let's go even more aggressive and say you were utilizing your storage for 40 hours every week.  Same math. 

40 hours * 6 watts per hour = 240 watt hours per week.  240 watt hours * $0.0001 * 52 weeks = $1.25 per year

40 hours * 2 watts per hour = 80 watt hours per week.  80 watt hours * $0.0001 * 52 weeks = $0.42 per year

 

These numbers just don't add up enough to make a meaningful difference in your power bill, but this is just some back of the napkin math.  If you can present a mathematical argument to showcase where there is an opportunity for far greater savings, I am VERY open to hearing it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
 
I kind of see what you're saying, but I think the power savings you would potentially gain there would be so miniscule that it wouldn't add up to anything significant.  We already only spin up the drive you need in order to read content as required, saving as much power as possible.  For us to add this option to the cache would honestly confuse a lot of people and not add enough value to warrant marketing it as a feature.
 
If your drives and SSDs were active 100% of the time, SSDs typically draw about 1/3 the power of an HDD (using rough numbers, let's assume 2 watts for active SSDs and 6 for active HDDs).  When not in use, HDDs and SSDs barely draw any power.  So it's only ACTIVE usage that you see this 66% reduction in power consumption.  So let's say you watch 3 movies a day for a week straight, each movie being 2 hrs long.  That's 6 hours of active use time.  So for a single HDD, that's 36 watt hours and for an SSD that's 12 watt hours.  Using a rough guideline of 10 cents per kilowatt hour, that's $0.0036 for a weeks worth of movie watching on HDDs and $0.0012 for SSDs.  Extrapolate that to a full year (multiply by 52 weeks) and you have $0.19 for the HDDs and $0.06 for SSDs.
 
Let's go even more aggressive and say you were utilizing your storage for 40 hours every week.  Same math. 
40 hours * 6 watts per hour = 240 watt hours per week.  240 watt hours * $0.0001 * 52 weeks = $1.25 per year
40 hours * 2 watts per hour = 80 watt hours per week.  80 watt hours * $0.0001 * 52 weeks = $0.42 per year
 
These numbers just don't add up enough to make a meaningful difference in your power bill, but this is just some back of the napkin math.  If you can present a mathematical argument to showcase where there is an opportunity for far greater savings, I am VERY open to hearing it.

It appears therr already is a plugin that does just what I need, enabled it this weekend :-)

So happy camper here !

Still looking for a completely out of the box way to make sure my secondary unraid server is up to date as a backup though, is that something ?


Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Just now, Helmonder said:


It appears therr already is a plugin that does just what I need, enabled it this weekend 🙂

So happy camper here !

Still looking for a completely out of the box way to make sure my secondary unraid server is up to date as a backup though, is that something ?


Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk

 

Nice!  Glad you found something to meet your needs.  Never surprises me with this community ;-).

 

As far as a backup solution goes, it's something we've talked about for years, but backup is an entire business in and of itself.  There are a plethora of companies/solutions out there for this ranging from the basic like rsync to the enterprise like CommVault.  And of course there are a million little variants and specialities in between such as Veaam for VM backups.  And on top of that if we want to make use of features like btrfs snapshots or send/receive, that can further complicate things.  So while we may eventually bring in a backup solution, that isn't a promise and in the meantime, you can probably find a variety of ways to backup your system with some basic Googling, but here's a nice write-up from our friend over at @spxlabs:  https://www.spxlabs.com/blog/2020/10/2/unraid-to-remote-unraid-backup-server-with-wireguard-and-rsync

  • Like 3
Link to comment
13 hours ago, jonp said:

No transcripts and unless we can find an automated service to do that, I do not intend to provide them.  I appreciate the desire to read, but for me to sit and literally transcribe everything said in an episode.......I'd rather watch paint dry

@jonp With your permission, I'll take a crack at generating a transcript with Google Speech-toText.  I have an 96kb/s 44.1kHz MP3 of the podcast.  If you're interested to provide a FLAC, it would improve the accuracy. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
On 5/10/2021 at 2:02 PM, jonp said:

 

Definitely will be.  Each episode will be a mixed bag.  The first episode was just setting the stage for things to come and to act as a reference point for content we intend to cover in other episodes.  30 minutes is roughly the length we want to keep these to not drag on too long, though there may be exceptions for special guests/events.

 

 

No transcripts and unless we can find an automated service to do that, I do not intend to provide them.  I appreciate the desire to read, but for me to sit and literally transcribe everything said in an episode.......I'd rather watch paint dry ;-)

 

 

I kind of see what you're saying, but I think the power savings you would potentially gain there would be so miniscule that it wouldn't add up to anything significant.  We already only spin up the drive you need in order to read content as required, saving as much power as possible.  For us to add this option to the cache would honestly confuse a lot of people and not add enough value to warrant marketing it as a feature.

 

If your drives and SSDs were active 100% of the time, SSDs typically draw about 1/3 the power of an HDD (using rough numbers, let's assume 2 watts for active SSDs and 6 for active HDDs).  When not in use, HDDs and SSDs barely draw any power.  So it's only ACTIVE usage that you see this 66% reduction in power consumption.  So let's say you watch 3 movies a day for a week straight, each movie being 2 hrs long.  That's 6 hours of active use time.  So for a single HDD, that's 36 watt hours and for an SSD that's 12 watt hours.  Using a rough guideline of 10 cents per kilowatt hour, that's $0.0036 for a weeks worth of movie watching on HDDs and $0.0012 for SSDs.  Extrapolate that to a full year (multiply by 52 weeks) and you have $0.19 for the HDDs and $0.06 for SSDs.

 

Let's go even more aggressive and say you were utilizing your storage for 40 hours every week.  Same math. 

40 hours * 6 watts per hour = 240 watt hours per week.  240 watt hours * $0.0001 * 52 weeks = $1.25 per year

40 hours * 2 watts per hour = 80 watt hours per week.  80 watt hours * $0.0001 * 52 weeks = $0.42 per year

 

These numbers just don't add up enough to make a meaningful difference in your power bill, but this is just some back of the napkin math.  If you can present a mathematical argument to showcase where there is an opportunity for far greater savings, I am VERY open to hearing it.

 

As for transcripts, YouTube's automated closed captioning will help. I feel like theres gotta be a way to extract the closed captions once YT creates them...?

 

On the power saving front, I have some real numbers, but they dont directly relate to what's requested - unraid already has the power saving features I need built in thanks to the unraid array. I went from having a 28 disk zfs pool (24 sas hdds, 2 ssds mirrored for slog and 2 more for l2arc) as my first unraid storage (zfs is what i knew, so i stuck solely with it at first) directly to unraids array.

 

Since zfs doesnt (or didnt, in my experience) really appreciate drives just "not" being able to immediately respond to I/O requests, all drives spin all the time. Let's call that an avg of 7w each (it was more like 5.5-6 for full spin with 0 I/O, 9w during operations, so on avg...) - 24 drives @ 7 watts each = 168w , 24 hours a day. 7 days a week, comes out to about $175 a year here. Let's give the drives a 5 year life expectancy, as that's about the longest warranty one can expect from a HDD, call it $875 as a lifetime total. That's without accounting for the SSDs power usage, wear on those SSDs, the extra computational power needed for zfs (and ram), etc.

 

I then went to an unraid array with the same media. Only needed 18 drives (2 parity, 16 data, as opposed to 4 z2 vdevs of 6 drives each - went with mirrored zfs for the VMs and containers, but again, ignoring those for now). On avg, I have 2 active streams at any given time between plex, nas usage, etc, so we'll just say those are always two different drives and never to the same disk, coming out to 14w (or when writing, 28w thanks to both parity drives).

 

At that rate, that $14.75 for read only, $29.50 for write only - $74-148 after 5 years, a savings of about 700, and that's not even counting the fact that 6 less HDDs were used. Or that my RAM needs for the host went completely through the floor.

 

My real world numbers ended up a bit different, as I eventually migrated from 3TB drives to 16TB and 6TB drives for media. The VMs and docker containers still use the same SSDs in a zfs raid 10. I still use ZFS for my backup server as well, I just dont really need that level of protection and performance on the primary array for multimedia files.

 

However, I did run a month with the same hardware, just using all ZFS one month, and the unraid array for media + zfs for other - UPS showed the avg power draw over the ZFS month to be ~238w. The next month was ~89w

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
On 5/11/2021 at 3:29 AM, DingHo said:

@jonp With your permission, I'll take a crack at generating a transcript with Google Speech-toText.  I have an 96kb/s 44.1kHz MP3 of the podcast.  If you're interested to provide a FLAC, it would improve the accuracy. 

Hmm, gonna have to see if I can obtain a FLAC version.  We use riverside.fm for recording which provides a wav or mp3 file, but no FLAC.  That said, I have been messing around with Audacity a bit and could probably extract to FLAC from there, but if the original source is MP3 or WAV, not sure if that'll help.  Send me a friend request on our discord server and let's connect on this!

Link to comment
On 5/10/2021 at 2:09 PM, jonp said:

 

 So while we may eventually bring in a backup solution, that isn't a promise and in the meantime, you can probably find a variety of ways to backup your system with some basic Googling, but here's a nice write-up from our friend over at @spxlabs:  https://www.spxlabs.com/blog/2020/10/2/unraid-to-remote-unraid-backup-server-with-wireguard-and-rsync

This was so incredibly nice and unexpected, thank you!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • 2 months later...

A topic that I would be interested in you and the team talking about is a deep dive into the findings that spaceinvader one makes in this video about gpu power draw. Especially when you touting vm preformens so much on unraid. And maybe just efficiency optimization in general. (we don't all have the luxury of 10¢ per kWh) 

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...
On 7/29/2021 at 10:32 AM, RipSaw said:

A topic that I would be interested in you and the team talking about is a deep dive into the findings that spaceinvader one makes in this video about gpu power draw. Especially when you touting vm preformens so much on unraid. And maybe just efficiency optimization in general. (we don't all have the luxury of 10¢ per kWh) 

that would be nice to see. i also saw that video if the gpu is using less kWh if the VM is on then when its off. Would be great if unraid detects the nvidia/Amd gpu to load the driver so it can put it in a lower powerstate. Saves power and maybe some heat also.

Link to comment

The behavior may well have changed since nvidia's driver update for code 43 - it also varies depending on the method you use for passthrough (xen passthrough, vs blocking the vendor IDs, etc), at least it did shortly after he made the video when I did my own testing.

 

It has less to do with unraid itself than it does KVM as a whole; I have the sneaking suspicion that AMD behaves completely in its own way as well. 

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.