T-40h until my disks are full and until then I need to have found a solution (Need about 10TB of additional usable storage).
Either:
* By then I need to have bought and received multiple โฅ5TB disks (it's a LVM-RAID5, so 2-3 additional โฅ5TB drives)
* Create a 2nd LVM with 1TB (or 4TB) disks and do silly things with overlays
* find something better.
Best time to need new HDDs (not). And why? Cause my #LVM is stupidly sized (ok not really, but for the current storage prices it kinda is).
Would need 2-3x 5TB 2.5" HDDs.
Anyone know how reliable using 10x 1TB drives, grouped into 2x 5TB RAID0s for using them as pvs within another LVM-RAID5 would be?
Anyone know if there is something equally simplistic and universal than LVM that allows for storage policies?
Aka. instead of needing equally sized disks to get something like RAID-5/6 but with an arbitrary amount of drives in arbitrary sizes? (Without the capacity capping).
For now say like I'd have something silly like this:
4x 5 TB
2x 20 TB
20x 1 TB
1x 500 GB
+ change
Goal:
* Encryption at rest
* Tolerates 2 drive failures without any dataloss at all (by more partial)
How to best organize various different-sized drives for data, apps and games #partitioning #mount #harddrive #filesystem #lvm
Oh "rclone copy" apparently doesn't force a sync to disk. And if you're running it a server with e.g. 512GB of RAM than this can result in a ":wq" in vim to appear as if it froze.
Is vim forcing a generic sync to disk when it exists? Or is this some kind of kernel bug that it doesn't just force that one file to sync to disk and instead waits for everything currently pending to be written?
What's going on here exactly?!?
๐
ฑ๐
ธ๐
ถ๐
พ๐๐๐
ด.๐
พ๐๐
ถ
Klaus Frank
AskUbuntu
Rince
erinaceus