My 18 TB is filled. . . ??

[Querzion]

 

Seems I have been very conservative setting it up, 1,8 TB 10%? What should I set it too instead?
What's the absolute bare minimum I can set it to?

 

Also, How do I force the mover to actually start moving the files I told it to move about 5 days ago? 
I had to manually move the dockers, and I thought things like that was going on in the background,
but nothing happened so I ended up just moving them manually. When I tell it to move,
I kind of expect it to force move the files directly. "/  



 

Edited August 9 by Querzion

[JonathanM]

5 minutes ago, Querzion said:

What's the absolute bare minimum I can set it to?

Depends on your risk tolerance. If there is ever any file system corruption, you need a significant amount of free space for the check and repair to succeed. That is one reason for the conservative free space of 10%.

 

Nothing can move open files, so if you have the docker service enabled, the files won't be moved. Also, you many have accidentally made copies, and they won't get overwritten. To see what's going on, temporarily enable mover logging, run the mover, then look at the syslog. Be sure to turn off mover logging, it will clog up the logs with all the extraneous junk.

[Querzion]

1 hour ago, JonathanM said:

Depends on your risk tolerance. If there is ever any file system corruption, you need a significant amount of free space for the check and repair to succeed. That is one reason for the conservative free space of 10%.

 

Nothing can move open files, so if you have the docker service enabled, the files won't be moved. Also, you many have accidentally made copies, and they won't get overwritten. To see what's going on, temporarily enable mover logging, run the mover, then look at the syslog. Be sure to turn off mover logging, it will clog up the logs with all the extraneous junk.

I'm moving 500+ GB's to the 8TB right now, I don't know if I'm doing it right though, pushed on the disk1 and move and then eight, which is the name on the extra pool I created, since the 8TB is 5400rpm, and the 4TB is 7200rpm, I separated them into two different pools, and I don't really need that much space atm, have a lot of things I have to watch etc. and the VM's I'm going to move after I have moved the backups to the 8 TB, the dockers are now situated on the fast pool, which is a m.2, but I'm seeing a lot of reads and wonder how long it's going to hold up before I have to to get a new one, and I'm thinking of having 2 x 2 TB, and have one as redundancy, and then put in another 2TB ssd to act as a cache, perhaps even 2x2 TB SSD's just for that purpose, but I don't know how the cache works, does it make a sequential move often or  less often? If it breaks and I lose hours or even weeks of work it's not really going to be a good fit to only have one. The main pool is only one 18TB atm, but I'm planning to buy another asap and put it in as a parity, and the month after, buy another 18 TB to add to the pool. when I have a pool of 2x18 TB plus a parity, I'm going to start focusing on cache, and move out the 8 & 4 TB drives from the case entirely. 

I just need to by the XL version of my case though. "/ Because the AIO cooler is too big, so I can't change over to the NAS configuration, meaning I can only place about 6 drives in the case for the time being. I really wanted to have two gpu's in there too, but if I'm to have more drives, I'm going to need to get myself an sas/sata card. It's to the extent that I'm starting to wonder if it wouldn't be better to buy a rack and put in a drive rack and and have a separate PC configuration in there too, but the cost was about 400€ for that case and it could only hold a 360 AIO, which means the AIO I have (420) is once again too big. "/ 

[JonathanM]

<tangent rant>

 

My personal opinion is that liquid cooling is great for desktop machines that are only running with someone right there that can react to anomalies. The consequences of an unattended failure, however small the chances, aren't worth the risk to me.

 

Leaks, although very rare, could possibly be system killers. The more common failure is pump related, which can result in rapid overheating due to the lack of thermal mass in the blocks. Standard heatsinks overheat much slower, and as long as you keep the air path free of dust, can even survive total single fan failure as long as enough air moves through the case to allow convection to take away the heat.

 

The only reason I bring this up is you mentioned totally rebuilding your system.

 

Server grade liquid cooling is in a whole different price class than desktop gaming systems, and is normally meant for whole racks of servers.

 

</end tangent rant>

 

Feel free to ignore me.

[Querzion]

11 hours ago, JonathanM said:

<tangent rant>

 

My personal opinion is that liquid cooling is great for desktop machines that are only running with someone right there that can react to anomalies. The consequences of an unattended failure, however small the chances, aren't worth the risk to me.

 

Leaks, although very rare, could possibly be system killers. The more common failure is pump related, which can result in rapid overheating due to the lack of thermal mass in the blocks. Standard heatsinks overheat much slower, and as long as you keep the air path free of dust, can even survive total single fan failure as long as enough air moves through the case to allow convection to take away the heat.

 

The only reason I bring this up is you mentioned totally rebuilding your system.

 

Server grade liquid cooling is in a whole different price class than desktop gaming systems, and is normally meant for whole racks of servers.

 

</end tangent rant>

 

Feel free to ignore me.

Well It is my personal computer that I have unRAID on, I sit next to it, so I can react to most stuff, but overheating is something that I might not be able to check on, since my chip isn't supported in linux.