Pete90

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Its videos, pictures, music and other data as well. I'll try playing around with compression today, see if disabeling helps at all. The CPU has 8C/16T and the container 2C/4T.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

The disk is owned by to PVE host and then given to the container (not a VM) as a mount point. I could use PCIe passthrough, sure, but using a container seems to be the more efficient way.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (5 children)

I meant mega byte (I hope that's correct I always mix them up). I transferred large videos files, both when the file system was zfs or lvm, yet different transfer speeds. The files were between 500mb to 1.5gb in size

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

I don't think it's the CPU as I am able to reach max speed, just not using ZFS...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (7 children)

Good point. I used fio with different block sizes:

fio --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --sync=1 --rw=read --bs=4K --numjobs=1 --iodepth=1 --runtime=60 --time_based --name seq_read --filename=/dev/sda

4K = IOPS=41.7k, BW=163MiB/s (171MB/s)
8K = IOPS=31.1k, BW=243MiB/s (254MB/s)
IOPS=13.2k, BW=411MiB/s (431MB/s)
512K = IOPS=809, BW=405MiB/s (424MB/s)
1M = IOPS=454, BW=455MiB/s (477MB/s)

I'm gonna be honest though, I have no idea what to make of these values. Seemingly, the drive is capable of maxing out my network. The CPU shouldn't be the problem, it's a i7 10700.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Tubearchivist works great for me. Downloader, database and player, all in one. Even integration with jellyfin is possible, not sure about plex though.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

Ah, thank you for clearing that up, much appreciated!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Excellent, I'll probably do that then. If I think about it, only one container needs write access so I should be good to go. User/permissions will be the same, since it's docker and I have one user for it. Awesome!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ah, very good to know. Then it makes sense to use this approach. Now I only need to figure out, whether I can give my NAS access drives of other VMs, as I might want to download a copy of that data easily. I guess here might be a problem with permissions and file lock, but I'm not sure. I'll look into this option, thanks!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

That makes sense, especially when the drives are equally old. Thanks for explaining it!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm curious. Where is the problem with small drives for RAID5? Too many writes for such a small drive?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

That sounds very interesting and I'll definetly look into it. Thank you!

view more: ‹ prev next ›