icedragonslair Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 I am asking if there is any reason to have a cache drive? I do all of my own metadata and transfers (manually) and this is used a home media server for kodi (xbmc) only. I do have the intention of trying MB and Plex again down the road a little bit. Can someone tell me if when i do, that installing a cache drive would make the EMBY or Plex Apps run smoother if they are on a cache and if that will allow external access to run smother as well? I would also like to know what the best cache size and type would be to use for this instance, I am leaning toward running a 250gb SSD for this. thanks so much, Ice Link to comment
tdallen Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 Dockers require an install location, both for the docker image and files external to the image. This is usually done on the cache drive, using it as an application drive. A benefit of this is that you don't have the array-write performance penalty. Also, applications like plex keep the drive it's on spinning all the time - I'd rather have that happen on my cache drive than the array, especially an SSD. I have a 250GB spinner for a cache drive and it has never been more than 35GB full. I only use it for applications - I don't cache writes to the array. I use Plex, SickBeard, SickRage, and Sab. I'd probably throw an 250GB SSD at cache duties for applications but I'd certainly use a 120GB if you have one. If you want to cache writes to the array, though, you need to size the cache drive for the maximum amount of data you will write between mover runs. You will generally have smooth performance of applications installed on an SSD cache drive but external access would not specifically be impacted. Link to comment
trurl Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 Dockers require an install location, both for the docker image and files external to the image. This is usually done on the cache drive, using it as an application drive. A benefit of this is that you don't have the array-write performance penalty. Also, applications like plex keep the drive it's on spinning all the time - I'd rather have that happen on my cache drive than the array, especially an SSD. I have a 250GB spinner for a cache drive and it has never been more than 35GB full. I only use it for applications - I don't cache writes to the array. I use Plex, SickBeard, SickRage, and Sab. I'd probably throw an 250GB SSD at cache duties for applications but I'd certainly use a 120GB if you have one. If you want to cache writes to the array, though, you need to size the cache drive for the maximum amount of data you will write between mover runs. You will generally have smooth performance of applications installed on an SSD cache drive but external access would not specifically be impacted. I also don't cache user shares, but do use a cache drive for apps. In addition to what tdallen said, apps not only would keep an array data drive spinning if they were installed there, but they would also keep parity spinning as well, since parity must also be written anytime an array data drive is written. Link to comment
icedragonslair Posted October 19, 2015 Author Share Posted October 19, 2015 Thank you for your responses, so a 120 it is One more question, should I keep my parity on a separate controller or doesn't that matter, i did it before allow space when I went up to 8 drives I have another controller card and three more data drives to add, now to upgrade Link to comment
icedragonslair Posted October 19, 2015 Author Share Posted October 19, 2015 Other than the two above...one last question...I promise I am changing the format on all my drives (data is off server on external usb drives) and I am going with xfs for my data drives. Should I use a different format for my parity and/or my cache (ssd) drive? Thanks again, Ice Link to comment
trurl Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 Other than the two above...one last question...I promise I am changing the format on all my drives (data is off server on external usb drives) and I am going with xfs for my data drives. Should I use a different format for my parity and/or my cache (ssd) drive? Thanks again, Ice Parity doesn't have a filesystem so it doesn't have a format. Btrfs allows raid pools for cache drive, XFS is perhaps more reliable. I use a cache pool, but also back it up frequently. Link to comment
icedragonslair Posted October 20, 2015 Author Share Posted October 20, 2015 Thank you again. only need to know if parity is better off on separate controller (mobo sata vs. my 2 controler cards) or is it okay on the same controllers as my cache and data drives Link to comment
garycase Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 ... so a 120 it is While 120 is almost certainly plenty, as long as you're not caching writes; I'd buy a 250 if you're buying one. If you happen to have a 120 already, that's fine ... but there's an insignificant price difference these days; and the larger drives tend to be a bit faster (not that you'll notice) and will generally last longer due to the cell layout. ... One more question, should I keep my parity on a separate controller or doesn't that matter ... Doesn't matter as long as it's not on a controller that's bandwidth limited by the # of attached drives and its interface capabilities. Link to comment
icedragonslair Posted October 20, 2015 Author Share Posted October 20, 2015 Thank you so much for the responses and help. Ice Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.