Double or Triple "Cache" pools


1812

Recommended Posts

+1

 

Just determined this would be really useful for my setup, because I was having terrible array read/write performance not being able to use the cache as a normal cache drive utilizing the mover function.

 

I have sense moved all my cache only data to an unassigned SSD device, so I could use a larger 6TB drive for the array cache.

 

My problem is even with a 500GB or 1TB SSD, I would easily write more then 1+ TB of data to the cache per day, causing the mover to have to invoke early. A 6+ TB cache drive solves this and will allow the mover to run normally, but that means I cannot load my "appdata" folder on it as guidance suggests.

 

There needs to be a Protected Array Cache that can use the mover, that way we can use your typical spinner drive for large transfers and a secondary Cache only array for apps/vm's.

 

This is my desired setup... I currently make it work with unassigned devices, but this is not ideal....

 

Edited by randomninjaatk
Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
12 hours ago, 1812 said:

Le sigh.....

 

 

Another OS update, another disappointment from lack of inclusion of a wanted feature in an already wonderful product....

I was honestly thinking about how I want to do security cameras but want a separate cache drive to fill up that I don't care about and would rotate out. Would be so nice..

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Jerky_san said:

I was honestly thinking about how I want to do security cameras but want a separate cache drive to fill up that I don't care about and would rotate out. Would be so nice..

Why not use an Unassigned Device drive for this purpose?    Only reason for it being a cache drive would be ift you wanted the data to be part of the User Share system and from your brief description that does not sound like it is something you want?

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

@limetech or @jonp Would we be able to get some confirmation that this feature is in the works?

 

I would love to have a setup with

 

4x 4TB HDD in a cache pool for shares, and some cache only shares like backups/photos etc (stuff that having BTRS bitrot protection is good for)

4x 1TB SSD's in another cache pool for VM's, Docker, appdata.

20x 4TB disks in an array for bulk media storage. (single parity)

 

 

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
1 minute ago, 1812 said:

 

I'd actually take both.

Note that It is already to create a second cache pool managed by Unassigned Devices as long as you do not want it to also participate in the User Share System.    You do have to use CLI level commands to initially create the pool as there is no GUI support for setting up such a pool.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, itimpi said:

Note that It is already to create a second cache pool managed by Unassigned Devices as long as you do not want it to also participate in the User Share System.    You do have to use CLI level commands to initially create the pool as there is no GUI support for setting up such a pool.

yes, I am aware there are lots of things you can do with unassigned devices. which is great. I've even done this before. but that doesn't matter. folks want GUI/unRaid supported options for this that are as easy to configure as the current cache/array pools are.

Link to comment
  • 10 months later...
  • 2 months later...

Yeah... but my server runs 2 websites (including a cloud with some people other than myself needing it to be up to access their shit), and some game servers, and also is where all my workstation stores its shit over a 10gbps link (WS's internal drives are solely SSD for software and scratch).

I prefer to stay on stable releases

Edited by Keexrean
Link to comment

Yeah! I added a lot of "!?!?!?" is in a memey way, but I saw indeed it was truely confirmed, I was just saying it as for people who might not feel like scrubbing through 1:30H of podcast :D

But what I'm waiting for now is the support for multiple arrays, with each their own parity! That would be FIRE.

 

Like, I have seen people on here running 28+2 drives arrays... the odds of 3 drives dying in such a configuration are concerning, when you account the time it takes and the stress caused by reconstructing of the firsts drives to fail!

 

+ having multiple arrays would basically in fact free us from using cache pools with btrfs flukes... I kinda would prefer to run an XFS array of SSD(s) with parity than a btrfs raid for example... or have the cache-pools be able to operate as such.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Keexrean said:

But what I'm waiting for now is the support for multiple arrays, with each their own parity! That would be FIRE.

It's mentioned in the the beta release thread that multiple arrays are going to be added in the future, though no ETA for now, and it will be post v6.9

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.