| 1 |
On 23/12/2021 16:56, Mark Knecht wrote: |
| 2 |
> Rich & Wols, |
| 3 |
> Thanks for the responses. I'll post a single response here. I had |
| 4 |
> thought of the need to mirror the ZIL but didn't have enough physical |
| 5 |
> disk slots in the backup machine for the 2nd SSD. I do think this is a |
| 6 |
> critical point if I was to use the ZIL at all. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Okay, how heavily are you going to hammer the server writing to it? If |
| 9 |
you aren't going to stress it, don't bother with the ZIL. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Based on inputs from the two of you I'm investigating a different |
| 12 |
> overall setup for my home network: |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Previously - a new main desktop that holds all my data. Lots of disk |
| 15 |
> space, lots of data. All of my big data work - audio recording |
| 16 |
> sessions and astrophotography - are done on this machine. Two |
| 17 |
> __backup__ machines. Desktop machines are backed up to machine 1, |
| 18 |
> machine 1 backed up to machine 2, machine 2 eventually backed up to |
| 19 |
> some cloud service. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Now - a new desktop machine that holds audio recording data currently |
| 22 |
> being recorded and used due to real-time latency requirements. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Sounds good... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
< Two new |
| 27 |
> network machines: Machine 1 would be both a backup machine as well as |
| 28 |
> a file server. The file server portion of this machine holds |
| 29 |
> astrophotography data and recorded video files. PixInsight running on |
| 30 |
> my desktop accesses and stores over the network to machine 1. Instead |
| 31 |
> of a ZIL in machine 1 the SSD becomes a ZLOG cache most likely holding |
| 32 |
> a cached copy of the currently active astrophotography projects. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Actually, it sounds like the best use of the SSD would be your working |
| 35 |
directory in your desktop. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> Machine 1 may also run a couple of VMs over time. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Whatever :-) Just make sure that it's easy to back up! I'd be inclined |
| 40 |
to have a bunch of raid-5'd disks ... |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Machine 2 is a pure |
| 43 |
> backup machine of everything on Machine 1. |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
I'd say don't waste your money. You don't need a *third* machine. Spend |
| 46 |
the money on some large disk drives, an eSATA card for machine 1, and a |
| 47 |
hard disk docking station ... |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
> FYI - Machine 1 will always be located close to my desktop machines |
| 50 |
> and use the 1Gb/S wired network. iperf suggests I get about 850Mb/S on |
| 51 |
> and off of Machine 1. Machine 2 will be remote and generally backed up |
| 52 |
> overnight using wireless. |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> As always I'm interested in your comments about what works or |
| 55 |
> doesn't work about this sort of setup. |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
My main desktop/server currently has two 4TB drives split 1TB/3TB. The |
| 58 |
two 3TB partitions are raid-5'd with a 3TB drive to give me 6TB of /home |
| 59 |
space. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
I'm planning to buy an 8TB drive as a backup. The plan is it will go |
| 62 |
into a test-bed machine, that will be used for all sorts of stuff, but |
| 63 |
it will at least keep a copy of my data off my main machine. |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
But you get the idea. If you get two spare drives you can back up on to |
| 66 |
them. I don't know what facilities ZFS offers for sync'ing filesystems, |
| 67 |
but if you're go somewhere regularly, where you can stash a hard disk |
| 68 |
(even a shed down the bottom of the garden :-), you back up onto disk 1, |
| 69 |
swap it for disk 2, back up on to disk 1, swap it for disk 2 ... |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
AND YOUR BACKUP IS OFF SITE! |
| 72 |
|
| 73 |
Cheers, |
| 74 |
Wol |
Archives