[gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

Howdy,

I've pretty much reached a limit on my backups.  I'm up to a 16TB hard
drive for one and even that won't last long.  Larger drives are much
more costly.  A must have NAS is quickly approaching.  I've been
searching around and find some things confusing.  I'm hoping someone can
clear up that confusion.  I'm also debating what path to travel down. 
I'd also like to keep costs down as well.  That said, I don't mind
paying a little more for one that would offer a much better option. 

Path one, buy a NAS, possibly used, that has no drives.  If possible, I
may even replace the OS that comes on it or upgrade if I can.  I'm not
looking for fancy, or even RAID.  Just looking for a two bay NAS that
will work.  First, what is a DAS?  Is that totally different than a
NAS?  From what I've found, a DAS is not what I'm looking for since I
want a ethernet connection and the ability to control things over the
network.  It seems DAS lacks that feature but not real sure.  I'm not
sure I can upgrade the software/OS on a DAS either. 

Next thing.  Let's say a NAS comes with two 4TB drives for a total of
8TB of capacity from the factory, using LVM or similar software I
assume.  Is that limited to that capacity or can I for example replace
one or both drives with for example 14TB drives for a total of 28TBs of
capacity?  If one does that, let's say it uses LVM, can I somehow move
data as well or is that beyond the abilities of a NAS?  Could it be done
inside my computer for example?  Does this vary by brand or even model? 

Path two, I've researched building a NAS using a Raspberry Pi 4 8GB as
another option.  They come as parts, cases too, but the newer and faster
models of Raspberry Pi 4 with more ram seem to work pretty well.  The
old slower models with small amounts of ram don't fair as well.  While I
want a descent speed, I'm not looking for or expecting it to be
blazingly fast.  I just wonder, if from a upgrade and expansion point of
view, if building a NAS would be better.  I've also noticed, it seems
all Raspberry things come with a display port.  That means I could hook
up a monitor and mouse/keyboard when needed.  That could be a bonus. 
Heck, I may can even put some sort of Gentoo on that thing.  :-D

One reason I'm wanting to go this route, I'm trying to keep it small and
able to fit inside my fire safe.  I plan to buy a media type safe that
is larger but right now, it needs to fit inside my current safe.  Most
of the 2 bay NAS or a Raspberry Pi based NAS are fairly small.  They not
much bigger than the three external hard drives and a couple bare drives
that currently occupy my safe. 

One thing I'd like to have no matter what path I go down, the ability to
encrypt the data.  My current backup drives are encrypted and I'd like
to keep it that way.  If that is possible to do.  I suspect the
Raspberry option would since I'd control the OS/software placed on it. 
I could be wrong tho. 

One last thing.  Are there any NAS type boxes that I should absolutely
avoid if I go that route?  Maybe it is a model that has serious
limitations or has other problems.  I think the DAS thing may be one for
me to avoid but I'm not for sure what limits it has.  Google didn't help
a lot. It also could be as simple as, avoid any model that says this in
the description or uses some type of software that is bad or limits
options. 

Thoughts?  Info to share?  Ideas on a best path forward?  Buy already
built or build?

Thanks.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Mark Knecht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4448 bytes --]

On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 5:38 AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Howdy,
>
> I've pretty much reached a limit on my backups.  I'm up to a 16TB hard
> drive for one and even that won't last long.  Larger drives are much
> more costly.  A must have NAS is quickly approaching.  I've been
> searching around and find some things confusing.  I'm hoping someone can
> clear up that confusion.  I'm also debating what path to travel down.
> I'd also like to keep costs down as well.  That said, I don't mind
> paying a little more for one that would offer a much better option.
>
> Path one, buy a NAS, possibly used, that has no drives.  If possible, I
> may even replace the OS that comes on it or upgrade if I can.  I'm not
> looking for fancy, or even RAID.  Just looking for a two bay NAS that
> will work.  First, what is a DAS?  Is that totally different than a
> NAS?  From what I've found, a DAS is not what I'm looking for since I
> want a ethernet connection and the ability to control things over the
> network.  It seems DAS lacks that feature but not real sure.  I'm not
> sure I can upgrade the software/OS on a DAS either.
>
> Next thing.  Let's say a NAS comes with two 4TB drives for a total of
> 8TB of capacity from the factory, using LVM or similar software I
> assume.  Is that limited to that capacity or can I for example replace
> one or both drives with for example 14TB drives for a total of 28TBs of
> capacity?  If one does that, let's say it uses LVM, can I somehow move
> data as well or is that beyond the abilities of a NAS?  Could it be done
> inside my computer for example?  Does this vary by brand or even model?
>
> Path two, I've researched building a NAS using a Raspberry Pi 4 8GB as
> another option.  They come as parts, cases too, but the newer and faster
> models of Raspberry Pi 4 with more ram seem to work pretty well.  The
> old slower models with small amounts of ram don't fair as well.  While I
> want a descent speed, I'm not looking for or expecting it to be
> blazingly fast.  I just wonder, if from a upgrade and expansion point of
> view, if building a NAS would be better.  I've also noticed, it seems
> all Raspberry things come with a display port.  That means I could hook
> up a monitor and mouse/keyboard when needed.  That could be a bonus.
> Heck, I may can even put some sort of Gentoo on that thing.  :-D
>
> One reason I'm wanting to go this route, I'm trying to keep it small and
> able to fit inside my fire safe.  I plan to buy a media type safe that
> is larger but right now, it needs to fit inside my current safe.  Most
> of the 2 bay NAS or a Raspberry Pi based NAS are fairly small.  They not
> much bigger than the three external hard drives and a couple bare drives
> that currently occupy my safe.
>
> One thing I'd like to have no matter what path I go down, the ability to
> encrypt the data.  My current backup drives are encrypted and I'd like
> to keep it that way.  If that is possible to do.  I suspect the
> Raspberry option would since I'd control the OS/software placed on it.
> I could be wrong tho.
>
> One last thing.  Are there any NAS type boxes that I should absolutely
> avoid if I go that route?  Maybe it is a model that has serious
> limitations or has other problems.  I think the DAS thing may be one for
> me to avoid but I'm not for sure what limits it has.  Google didn't help
> a lot. It also could be as simple as, avoid any model that says this in
> the description or uses some type of software that is bad or limits
> options.
>
> Thoughts?  Info to share?  Ideas on a best path forward?  Buy already
> built or build?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)

DAS is direct-attached-storage. I don't think you want that.

Synology (sp?) is sort of a big name in home & small office NAS boxes. You
can buy the boxes with or without drives. I suspect you won't like the
prices.

I wonder if you might consider what data on your backups needs to be
immediately available and which doesn't. Possibly buy an 8TB USB drive,
take a bunch of the lower priority data off of your current backup thus
system freeing space and move on from there?

I built my NAS devices using old computers ala Wol's suggestion to me maybe
a year ago. They work for me but don't have the fastest network interfaces.

Raspberry Pi 4 B's are hard to get and expensive right now. Still, they are
nice little devices but you would probably be limited to USB hard drive
storage.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5234 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6603 bytes --]

Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 5:38 AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com
> <mailto:rdalek1967@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Howdy,
> >
> > I've pretty much reached a limit on my backups.  I'm up to a 16TB hard
> > drive for one and even that won't last long.  Larger drives are much
> > more costly.  A must have NAS is quickly approaching.  I've been
> > searching around and find some things confusing.  I'm hoping someone can
> > clear up that confusion.  I'm also debating what path to travel down.
> > I'd also like to keep costs down as well.  That said, I don't mind
> > paying a little more for one that would offer a much better option.
> >
> > Path one, buy a NAS, possibly used, that has no drives.  If possible, I
> > may even replace the OS that comes on it or upgrade if I can.  I'm not
> > looking for fancy, or even RAID.  Just looking for a two bay NAS that
> > will work.  First, what is a DAS?  Is that totally different than a
> > NAS?  From what I've found, a DAS is not what I'm looking for since I
> > want a ethernet connection and the ability to control things over the
> > network.  It seems DAS lacks that feature but not real sure.  I'm not
> > sure I can upgrade the software/OS on a DAS either.
> >
> > Next thing.  Let's say a NAS comes with two 4TB drives for a total of
> > 8TB of capacity from the factory, using LVM or similar software I
> > assume.  Is that limited to that capacity or can I for example replace
> > one or both drives with for example 14TB drives for a total of 28TBs of
> > capacity?  If one does that, let's say it uses LVM, can I somehow move
> > data as well or is that beyond the abilities of a NAS?  Could it be done
> > inside my computer for example?  Does this vary by brand or even model?
> >
> > Path two, I've researched building a NAS using a Raspberry Pi 4 8GB as
> > another option.  They come as parts, cases too, but the newer and faster
> > models of Raspberry Pi 4 with more ram seem to work pretty well.  The
> > old slower models with small amounts of ram don't fair as well.  While I
> > want a descent speed, I'm not looking for or expecting it to be
> > blazingly fast.  I just wonder, if from a upgrade and expansion point of
> > view, if building a NAS would be better.  I've also noticed, it seems
> > all Raspberry things come with a display port.  That means I could hook
> > up a monitor and mouse/keyboard when needed.  That could be a bonus.
> > Heck, I may can even put some sort of Gentoo on that thing.  :-D
> >
> > One reason I'm wanting to go this route, I'm trying to keep it small and
> > able to fit inside my fire safe.  I plan to buy a media type safe that
> > is larger but right now, it needs to fit inside my current safe.  Most
> > of the 2 bay NAS or a Raspberry Pi based NAS are fairly small.  They not
> > much bigger than the three external hard drives and a couple bare drives
> > that currently occupy my safe.
> >
> > One thing I'd like to have no matter what path I go down, the ability to
> > encrypt the data.  My current backup drives are encrypted and I'd like
> > to keep it that way.  If that is possible to do.  I suspect the
> > Raspberry option would since I'd control the OS/software placed on it.
> > I could be wrong tho.
> >
> > One last thing.  Are there any NAS type boxes that I should absolutely
> > avoid if I go that route?  Maybe it is a model that has serious
> > limitations or has other problems.  I think the DAS thing may be one for
> > me to avoid but I'm not for sure what limits it has.  Google didn't help
> > a lot. It also could be as simple as, avoid any model that says this in
> > the description or uses some type of software that is bad or limits
> > options.
> >
> > Thoughts?  Info to share?  Ideas on a best path forward?  Buy already
> > built or build?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Dale
> >
> > :-)  :-)
>
> DAS is direct-attached-storage. I don't think you want that.
>
> Synology (sp?) is sort of a big name in home & small office NAS boxes.
> You can buy the boxes with or without drives. I suspect you won't like
> the prices.
>
> I wonder if you might consider what data on your backups needs to be
> immediately available and which doesn't. Possibly buy an 8TB USB
> drive, take a bunch of the lower priority data off of your current
> backup thus system freeing space and move on from there?
>
> I built my NAS devices using old computers ala Wol's suggestion to me
> maybe a year ago. They work for me but don't have the fastest network
> interfaces.
>
> Raspberry Pi 4 B's are hard to get and expensive right now. Still,
> they are nice little devices but you would probably be limited to USB
> hard drive storage.


I was thinking DAS was not a good option.  It seems like a feature
removed and cheaper version of NAS. 

I think I've seen a couple Synology NAS boxes but I think even used they
were a bit pricey.  Still, used could make that a option.  Maybe.  It
could fall into the category of pay a little more for a much better
option, even if it is used. 

I've considered using older systems I have for NAS but they are large. 
Way to large.  It would require a lot of effort to shrink them down if
it is even possible.  A NAS is smaller and designed for what I need as
well.  This is what I found that goes with the Raspberry Pi. 

https://shop.allnetchina.cn/collections/sata-hat/products/dual-sata-hat-open-frame-for-raspberry-pi-4

There is a two bay and a four bay version.  I think the case is the same
for both so I may go with four for future expansion.  Price isn't bad
for that part but as you say, Raspberry Pi board is a bit pricey.  Thing
is, given the amount of control I'd have over it, it could be a better
option long term.  I might add, I think this board is somewhat new.  I
meant to include a link to it but forget.  It could be that you are not
aware of that, or many other people either.  Also, I'd like to buy it
from a more local vendor.  I've bought things from China through Ebay
but it has a guarantee and refund option that is fairly good.  It's a
option I've had to exercise a time or two. 

Part of me wants to buy a used but well featured NAS box.  Part of me
thinks a Raspberry would be better and have upgrade options in the
future as well.  I'm pretty sure I could have encryption on a Raspberry
NAS as well.  I'm not sure if a prebuilt NAS box has encryption or not. 

Hope for some good ideas tho.  I'd like to avoid buying something that
won't come close to serving even current needs or just plain doesn't work.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 9196 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Mark Knecht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1460 bytes --]

On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 6:59 AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Mark Knecht wrote:
>
> DAS is direct-attached-storage. I don't think you want that.
<SNIP>
> I was thinking DAS was not a good option.  It seems like a feature
removed and cheaper version of NAS.

I've never touched a DAS box but my limited understanding is that it's an
external box that interfaces to your computer. In your case that might
attached to your backup machine, or is Rich or someone can point
you toward an appropriate RP4 or some other single board computer
it could attach to that. The problem will be the interface. In big rack
mount servers these interfaces are often some high end version
of PCI Express with Multi-gigabyte/second interfaces. You're just
not likely to find something like that on an RP4.

If you really wanted to tinker you can always find used rack mount
servers being retired from cloud hosting services on Ebay. They
generally come with fast Ethernet interfaces and more than
enough compute power but likely not as much disk space as
you seem to want. (There's lots of used Synology boxes there
also...)

I still think that an 8TB USB drive from Amazon for around $100
would meet your needs. Off load the stuff you don't need to
access from backups immediately, through the drive in your
fire safe and you suddenly have 8TB free on your
backup machine. It's slow, but it's easy and requires no new
computers and hence to mental bandwidth.

Good luck.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Daniel Frey]

On 12/8/22 05:58, Dale wrote:
> 
> 
> I was thinking DAS was not a good option.  It seems like a feature 
> removed and cheaper version of NAS.
> 
> I think I've seen a couple Synology NAS boxes but I think even used they 
> were a bit pricey.  Still, used could make that a option. Maybe.  It 
> could fall into the category of pay a little more for a much better 
> option, even if it is used.
> 
> I've considered using older systems I have for NAS but they are large.  
> Way to large.  It would require a lot of effort to shrink them down if 
> it is even possible.  A NAS is smaller and designed for what I need as 
> well.  This is what I found that goes with the Raspberry Pi.
> 
> https://shop.allnetchina.cn/collections/sata-hat/products/dual-sata-hat-open-frame-for-raspberry-pi-4
> 
> There is a two bay and a four bay version.  I think the case is the same 
> for both so I may go with four for future expansion.  Price isn't bad 
> for that part but as you say, Raspberry Pi board is a bit pricey.  Thing 
> is, given the amount of control I'd have over it, it could be a better 
> option long term.  I might add, I think this board is somewhat new.  I 
> meant to include a link to it but forget.  It could be that you are not 
> aware of that, or many other people either.  Also, I'd like to buy it 
> from a more local vendor.  I've bought things from China through Ebay 
> but it has a guarantee and refund option that is fairly good.  It's a 
> option I've had to exercise a time or two.
> 
> Part of me wants to buy a used but well featured NAS box.  Part of me 
> thinks a Raspberry would be better and have upgrade options in the 
> future as well.  I'm pretty sure I could have encryption on a Raspberry 
> NAS as well.  I'm not sure if a prebuilt NAS box has encryption or not.
> 
> Hope for some good ideas tho.  I'd like to avoid buying something that 
> won't come close to serving even current needs or just plain doesn't work.
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-)

Dale,

DAS is direct attached storage. If your intention is to share the data 
with multiple devices for backup you will need to keep in mind that you 
will need a PC to share the data the DAS device is storing. In general, 
most DAS require some sort of HBA (some of these HBAs can be hundreds to 
thousands of dollars.) I've seen some eSata ones but they usually don't 
have stellar reviews. It's also getting harder to find eSata devices.

In contrast NAS devices are designed to plug in to the network and be 
shared with multiple devices on the LAN right from the get-go.

You are probably interested in a NAS, not a DAS.

I have an aging ix4-300d NAS. The display has started crashing now but 
the device is still rock solid. However I'm in the same boat and have 
been researching options - I think for my case I will get a small cube 
case and mini-ITX board and roll my own Gentoo install. The cost may 
even be slightly cheaper as 4 bay NAS here are quite expensive where I 
am (with no drives installed) and building my own will be a bit cheaper 
and I can choose what drives to run in it. Vulnerabilities on devices 
like QNAP and Synology are very real and at least if you can roll your 
own you can keep that to a minimum (like an example not running a web 
browser to configure things.)

Dan

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

Daniel Frey wrote:
> On 12/8/22 05:58, Dale wrote:
>>
>>
>> I was thinking DAS was not a good option.  It seems like a feature
>> removed and cheaper version of NAS.
>>
>> I think I've seen a couple Synology NAS boxes but I think even used
>> they were a bit pricey.  Still, used could make that a option.
>> Maybe.  It could fall into the category of pay a little more for a
>> much better option, even if it is used.
>>
>> I've considered using older systems I have for NAS but they are
>> large.  Way to large.  It would require a lot of effort to shrink
>> them down if it is even possible.  A NAS is smaller and designed for
>> what I need as well.  This is what I found that goes with the
>> Raspberry Pi.
>>
>> https://shop.allnetchina.cn/collections/sata-hat/products/dual-sata-hat-open-frame-for-raspberry-pi-4
>>
>>
>> There is a two bay and a four bay version.  I think the case is the
>> same for both so I may go with four for future expansion.  Price
>> isn't bad for that part but as you say, Raspberry Pi board is a bit
>> pricey.  Thing is, given the amount of control I'd have over it, it
>> could be a better option long term.  I might add, I think this board
>> is somewhat new.  I meant to include a link to it but forget.  It
>> could be that you are not aware of that, or many other people
>> either.  Also, I'd like to buy it from a more local vendor.  I've
>> bought things from China through Ebay but it has a guarantee and
>> refund option that is fairly good.  It's a option I've had to
>> exercise a time or two.
>>
>> Part of me wants to buy a used but well featured NAS box.  Part of me
>> thinks a Raspberry would be better and have upgrade options in the
>> future as well.  I'm pretty sure I could have encryption on a
>> Raspberry NAS as well.  I'm not sure if a prebuilt NAS box has
>> encryption or not.
>>
>> Hope for some good ideas tho.  I'd like to avoid buying something
>> that won't come close to serving even current needs or just plain
>> doesn't work.
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)  :-)
>
> Dale,
>
> DAS is direct attached storage. If your intention is to share the data
> with multiple devices for backup you will need to keep in mind that
> you will need a PC to share the data the DAS device is storing. In
> general, most DAS require some sort of HBA (some of these HBAs can be
> hundreds to thousands of dollars.) I've seen some eSata ones but they
> usually don't have stellar reviews. It's also getting harder to find
> eSata devices.
>
> In contrast NAS devices are designed to plug in to the network and be
> shared with multiple devices on the LAN right from the get-go.
>
> You are probably interested in a NAS, not a DAS.
>
> I have an aging ix4-300d NAS. The display has started crashing now but
> the device is still rock solid. However I'm in the same boat and have
> been researching options - I think for my case I will get a small cube
> case and mini-ITX board and roll my own Gentoo install. The cost may
> even be slightly cheaper as 4 bay NAS here are quite expensive where I
> am (with no drives installed) and building my own will be a bit
> cheaper and I can choose what drives to run in it. Vulnerabilities on
> devices like QNAP and Synology are very real and at least if you can
> roll your own you can keep that to a minimum (like an example not
> running a web browser to configure things.)
>
> Dan
>
>

I was thinking DAS wouldn't fit my needs.  Just wasn't real sure what
the difference was.  Someone always coming up with something that only
half works.  :/

Right now, I have a modem/router in one that the ISP provided.  I have a
separate router that I use since I can control access with it.  The ISP
modem/router can not be accessed by me.  Supposedly, it has some
protection but without access, who knows.  Either way, I'd connect a NAS
to my router that I control and if possible, forbid internet access.  If
possible, I may restrict it to ethernet access only, no wifi connection
either.  That should lock it down.  Also, I only update backups once a
week for maybe a hour or less.  The window for a hacker would be small
anyway. 

I looked into buying/building a really small puter but with a lot of
drive bays.  Thing is, they have few SATA ports and not many ways to add
any plus they end up being to large.  I really don't like USB for my
data much.  I've had a lot of bad experiences with USB and hard drives. 
Still, if this Raspberry thing uses it and others make it work fine, I'd
give it a shot. 

Still reading posts and trying to sort things out.  Also, searching
around for NAS boxes just in case I run up on a steal of a deal.  :-D 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Paul Colquhoun]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 537 bytes --]

On Friday, December 9, 2022 12:58:38 A.M. AEDT Dale wrote:


> I was thinking DAS was not a good option.  It seems like a feature
> removed and cheaper version of NAS. 

Maybe get the DAS, then connect it to the Rasberry Pi 4, to make a DIY NAS.

That way you get a propper encolsure for your drives, without needing to cobble 
something together.


-- 
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC.     http://andor.dropbear.id.au/
  Asking for technical help in newsgroups?  Read this first:
     http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1418 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Wols Lists]

On 08/12/2022 13:31, Mark Knecht wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 5:38 AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com 
> <mailto:rdalek1967@gmail.com>> wrote:
>  >
>  > Howdy,
>  >
>  > I've pretty much reached a limit on my backups.  I'm up to a 16TB hard
>  > drive for one and even that won't last long.  Larger drives are much
>  > more costly.  A must have NAS is quickly approaching.  I've been
>  > searching around and find some things confusing.  I'm hoping someone can
>  > clear up that confusion.  I'm also debating what path to travel down.
>  > I'd also like to keep costs down as well.  That said, I don't mind
>  > paying a little more for one that would offer a much better option.
>  >
>  > Path one, buy a NAS, possibly used, that has no drives.  If possible, I
>  > may even replace the OS that comes on it or upgrade if I can.  I'm not
>  > looking for fancy, or even RAID.  Just looking for a two bay NAS that
>  > will work.  First, what is a DAS?  Is that totally different than a
>  > NAS?  From what I've found, a DAS is not what I'm looking for since I
>  > want a ethernet connection and the ability to control things over the
>  > network.  It seems DAS lacks that feature but not real sure.  I'm not
>  > sure I can upgrade the software/OS on a DAS either.
>  >
>  > Next thing.  Let's say a NAS comes with two 4TB drives for a total of
>  > 8TB of capacity from the factory, using LVM or similar software I
>  > assume.  Is that limited to that capacity or can I for example replace
>  > one or both drives with for example 14TB drives for a total of 28TBs of
>  > capacity?  If one does that, let's say it uses LVM, can I somehow move
>  > data as well or is that beyond the abilities of a NAS?  Could it be done
>  > inside my computer for example?  Does this vary by brand or even model?
>  >
>  > Path two, I've researched building a NAS using a Raspberry Pi 4 8GB as
>  > another option.  They come as parts, cases too, but the newer and faster
>  > models of Raspberry Pi 4 with more ram seem to work pretty well.  The
>  > old slower models with small amounts of ram don't fair as well.  While I
>  > want a descent speed, I'm not looking for or expecting it to be
>  > blazingly fast.  I just wonder, if from a upgrade and expansion point of
>  > view, if building a NAS would be better.  I've also noticed, it seems
>  > all Raspberry things come with a display port.  That means I could hook
>  > up a monitor and mouse/keyboard when needed.  That could be a bonus.
>  > Heck, I may can even put some sort of Gentoo on that thing.  :-D
>  >
>  > One reason I'm wanting to go this route, I'm trying to keep it small and
>  > able to fit inside my fire safe.  I plan to buy a media type safe that
>  > is larger but right now, it needs to fit inside my current safe.  Most
>  > of the 2 bay NAS or a Raspberry Pi based NAS are fairly small.  They not
>  > much bigger than the three external hard drives and a couple bare drives
>  > that currently occupy my safe.
>  >
>  > One thing I'd like to have no matter what path I go down, the ability to
>  > encrypt the data.  My current backup drives are encrypted and I'd like
>  > to keep it that way.  If that is possible to do.  I suspect the
>  > Raspberry option would since I'd control the OS/software placed on it.
>  > I could be wrong tho.
>  >
>  > One last thing.  Are there any NAS type boxes that I should absolutely
>  > avoid if I go that route?  Maybe it is a model that has serious
>  > limitations or has other problems.  I think the DAS thing may be one for
>  > me to avoid but I'm not for sure what limits it has.  Google didn't help
>  > a lot. It also could be as simple as, avoid any model that says this in
>  > the description or uses some type of software that is bad or limits
>  > options.
>  >
>  > Thoughts?  Info to share?  Ideas on a best path forward?  Buy already
>  > built or build?
>  >
>  > Thanks.
>  >
>  > Dale
>  >
>  > :-)  :-)
> 
> DAS is direct-attached-storage. I don't think you want that.

Depends. If it fits in the safe, and can be connected using one of these 
eSATA thingy connectors, it might be a very good choice.
> 
> Synology (sp?) is sort of a big name in home & small office NAS boxes. 
> You can buy the boxes with or without drives. I suspect you won't like 
> the prices.

I've been looking :-) I think the empty box costs more than the drives 
you're going to put in it ...
> 
> I wonder if you might consider what data on your backups needs to be 
> immediately available and which doesn't. Possibly buy an 8TB USB drive, 
> take a bunch of the lower priority data off of your current backup thus 
> system freeing space and move on from there?
> 
> I built my NAS devices using old computers ala Wol's suggestion to me 
> maybe a year ago. They work for me but don't have the fastest network 
> interfaces.
> 
I get the impression Dale isn't actually PLANNING his disk storage. It's 
just a case of "help I'm downloading all this stuff where do I put it!!!"

How much storage do you have in your actual computer? How much space do 
you need IN ONE PARTITION? Can you get an external disk caddy that you 
just slot bare drives in?

I've no doubt you have good reason for wanting all this storage. I just 
fail to see why you need huge drives for it if most of the time you're 
not doing anything with it.

Get yourself a basic 4-way DAS/JBOD setup, PLAN where you're putting all 
this stuff, and plug in and remove drives as required. You don't need 
all these huge drives if you think about what you're going to do with it 
all. (And while it takes time and hammers the system, I regularly record 
off the TV getting a 2GB .ts file, convert it to mp4 - same resolution - 
and reduce the size by an order of magnitude - maybe more.

If you've got two hot-swap JBOD enclosures, that's brilliant. You can 
stream from your media centre to a drive, swap it out, and use a second 
system to then organise your collection.

Oh - and if you are worried about disks going walkabout, just LUKS the 
whole disk, and without the key nobody can read it ... build your 
partitions or whatever over it.

Cheers,
Wol

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Mark Knecht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2330 bytes --]

On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 11:36 AM Wols Lists <antlists@youngman.org.uk> wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
> > DAS is direct-attached-storage. I don't think you want that.
>
> Depends. If it fits in the safe, and can be connected using one of these
> eSATA thingy connectors, it might be a very good choice.

First, I Agree about 300% with everything you posted in this response.
However
Rich and I have mentioned RPi 4 type solutions and I don't personally know
of any that have eSATA outputs, but it's possible. There are some RPi case
that can hold M.2 and SSD devices but the ones I looked at get there through
a USB port.

> >
> > Synology (sp?) is sort of a big name in home & small office NAS boxes.
> > You can buy the boxes with or without drives. I suspect you won't like
> > the prices.
>
> I've been looking :-) I think the empty box costs more than the drives
> you're going to put in it ...

Certainly more than I would want to spend. However with Dale talking
about 14TB, 16TB, 20TB possibly not. I just cannot imagine Dale
spending that much money on hardware! ;-)

> >
> > I wonder if you might consider what data on your backups needs to be
> > immediately available and which doesn't. Possibly buy an 8TB USB drive,
> > take a bunch of the lower priority data off of your current backup thus
> > system freeing space and move on from there?
> >
> > I built my NAS devices using old computers ala Wol's suggestion to me
> > maybe a year ago. They work for me but don't have the fastest network
> > interfaces.
> >
> I get the impression Dale isn't actually PLANNING his disk storage. It's
> just a case of "help I'm downloading all this stuff where do I put it!!!"
>
> How much storage do you have in your actual computer? How much space do
> you need IN ONE PARTITION? Can you get an external disk caddy that you
> just slot bare drives in?
>

This is a good point. With planning he could have multiple 4TB type
drives with 2 or 3 slots and you plug in the drive you want to use
that day. It would take some minor planning but it's not a huge deal
and as larger drives become less expensive over time he could swap
out a 4TB for 8TB or higher, etc, as he needed to.

If it has the performance he needs he could start with drives he
already has and then upgrade over time moving data around
after he does his planning. ;-)

- Mark

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2971 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Frank Steinmetzger]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4155 bytes --]

Am Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 06:36:14PM +0000 schrieb Wols Lists:

> >  > I've pretty much reached a limit on my backups.  I'm up to a 16TB hard
> >  > drive for one and even that won't last long.  Larger drives are much
> >  > more costly.  A must have NAS is quickly approaching.  I've been
> >  > searching around and find some things confusing.  I'm hoping someone can
> >  > clear up that confusion.  I'm also debating what path to travel down.
> >  > I'd also like to keep costs down as well.  That said, I don't mind
> >  > paying a little more for one that would offer a much better option.
> >  >
> >  > Path one, buy a NAS, possibly used, that has no drives.  If possible, I
> >  > may even replace the OS that comes on it or upgrade if I can.  I'm not
> >  > looking for fancy, or even RAID.  Just looking for a two bay NAS that
> >  > will work.  First, what is a DAS?  Is that totally different than a
> >  > NAS?  From what I've found, a DAS is not what I'm looking for since I
> >  > want a ethernet connection and the ability to control things over the
> >  > network.  It seems DAS lacks that feature but not real sure.  I'm not
> >  > sure I can upgrade the software/OS on a DAS either.
> >  > […]
> >
> > DAS is direct-attached-storage. I don't think you want that.
>
> Depends. If it fits in the safe, and can be connected using one of these
> eSATA thingy connectors, it might be a very good choice.
>
> […]
>
> I get the impression Dale isn't actually PLANNING his disk storage. It's
> just a case of "help I'm downloading all this stuff where do I put it!!!"

Haha, thanks for the laugh.

> Get yourself a basic 4-way DAS/JBOD setup, PLAN where you're putting all
> this stuff, and plug in and remove drives as required. You don't need all
> these huge drives if you think about what you're going to do with it all.

That’s actually a good idea. Either use a hot swap frame for an internal 5¼″
PC bay, a desktop dock for bare drives or a multi-bay enclosure. The market
is big, you have lots of choices. USB (with or without integrated hub),
eSATA, one or two bays, etc: https://skinflint.co.uk/?cat=hddocks

Advantages:
- no separate system to maintain just for storage: save $$$, time and power
- very flexible: no chassis limitation on number of disks
- no bulky external enclosures, each using a different power brick and cable
- minimum volume to put into a safe (just get or make a bulk storage case)

Disadvantages:
- not as “fancy” as a NAS
- possibly not all disks can be used at the same time
- physical handling of naked disks takes more care
- LVM is not practical, so use each disk separately
- you gotta remember which files are where¹
- SATA connectors aren’t made for very many insertion cycles (I think the
  spec says 50?), which doesn’t mean they endure much more, but still …

> (And while it takes time and hammers the system, I regularly record off the
> TV getting a 2GB .ts file, convert it to mp4 - same resolution - and reduce
> the size by an order of magnitude - maybe more.

Well, ts uses mpeg2 encoding, just like old video DVDs, which is very
inefficient when compared with modern h264/h265. Modern digital TV broadcast
uses h264 by now.


Incidentally, I got myself a new HDD today: an external 2.5″ WD Passport
Ultra 5 TB with USB-C 3.0. Just because I like portable storage and also
because I need temporary space if I want to convert my NAS RAID-Z2 to Z1.


¹ I do have several external USB disks, plus the big NAS. All of which don’t
run very often. And I don’t want to turn them on just to look for a certain
file. That’s why I have another little script. ;-) It uses the `tree` command
to save the complete content listing of a directory into a text file and
names the file automatically by the name of the directory it crawls. So if I
want to find a file, I just need to grep through my text files.

-- 
Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.

The whale is characterised by its bulky form factor.

[-- Attachment #1.2: FileTree --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 4279 bytes --]

#!/bin/sh

# history
# 2018-02-10 initial version
# 2020-06-10 added -a option
# ????-??-?? gzip result
# 2021-03-22 put current date into output filename
# 2021-04-06 code refactoring with more functions and input sanitisation
# 2021-12-22 prefer zstd over gzip
# 2022-01-23 don't create symlink if there is no previous file
# 2022-01-30 added xz to compressors
# 2022-12-08 some cleanup, added -C and -K options

die() {
    echo "${@}" > /dev/stderr
    exit 1
}

usage() {
    cat <<-EOF
	Usage: $(basename "$0") [-o NAME] [DIR]
	A wrapper to tree, it writes the content of DIR into a text file.
	The file is named after DIR and the current date, and symlink to the
	most recent version is set. The file is automatically compressed to
	zstd, xz or gzip, whichever is available in that order.

	Options:
	  -a    access attributes: owner, group, permissions
	  -C    do not compress result file
	  -K    do not keep backup of existing file in case of overwriting
	  -o    The destination where to write the trees.
	        Default: .
	        If it is a directory: write in there
	        If it is a filename: use that as base. If not,
	        use the name of the directory as name base.
	EOF
}

test_writable() {
    touch "$1" 2>/dev/null || die "Cannot create file in $(dirname "$1")."
}

# run tree and redirect output to destination file
call_to_tree() {
    WHICH="$1"
    OUTPATH="$2-$1"
    shift 2
    declare TREE_ARGS
    TREE_ARGS+=("$@")

    local DATED_PATH="$OUTPATH-$TODAY"
    local EXT
    local PACK
    local CREATE_SYMLINK=no

    if [ "$COMPRESS" = "no" ]; then
        TREE_ARGS+=("-o")
        TREE_ARGS+=("$DATED_PATH")
    elif command -v zstd > /dev/null; then
        PACK="zstd --rm -q -13"
        EXT=".zst"
        TREE_ARGS+=("-o")
        TREE_ARGS+=("$DATED_PATH")
    elif command -v xz > /dev/null; then
        PACK="xz"
        EXT=".xz"
        TREE_ARGS+=("-o")
        TREE_ARGS+=("$DATED_PATH")
    else
        PACK="gzip"
        EXT=".gz"
    fi

    ls "$OUTPATH-*" > /dev/null 2>&1 && CREATE_SYMLINK=yes

    # pack yet unpacked file
    if [ "$COMPRESS" != "no" ]; then
        [ -f "$DATED_PATH" ] && [ ! -f "$DATED_PATH$EXT" ] && $PACK "$DATED_PATH"
    fi
    # move away old file
    if [ -f "$DATED_PATH$EXT" ]; then
        [ "$KEEP_OLD" = "no" ] && rm -f "$DATED_PATH$EXT" || mv -f "$DATED_PATH$EXT" "$DATED_PATH.old$EXT"
    fi

    test_writable "$DATED_PATH"
    echo "Writing $WHICH tree to $(realpath "$DATED_PATH")$EXT"

    BEGIN_TIME=$(date +%s)
    "${TREE_ARGS[@]}"
    END_TIME=$(date +%s)

    echo >> "$DATED_PATH"
    df -BM . | awk 'NR==2 { print "Size: " $3 "   Available: " $4 "   Usage: " $5; }' >> "$DATED_PATH"
    [ "$PACK" ] && $PACK "$DATED_PATH"

    if [ "$CREATE_SYMLINK" = yes ]; then
        if [ -e "$OUTPATH" ] && [ ! -L "$OUTPATH" ]; then
            echo "Cannot set symlink, filename already taken."
        else
            echo "Setting symlink $OUTPATH -> $(basename "$DATED_PATH")"
            ln -sfn "$(basename "$DATED_PATH$EXT")" "$OUTPATH$EXT"
        fi
    fi

    echo "Reading of directory took $((END_TIME - BEGIN_TIME)) seconds."
}

# parse arguments
unset ACCESSRIGHTS
unset COMPRESS
unset KEEP_OLD

while getopts "CKaho:" OPTION
do
    case $OPTION in
        C) COMPRESS=no ;;
        K) KEEP_OLD=no ;;
        a) ACCESSRIGHTS=yes ;;
        h) usage; exit 0 ;;
        o) OUTARG="$OPTARG" ;;
    esac
done
shift $((OPTIND-1)); OPTIND=1

# input sanitisation and derivation of destination paths
DIR="${1:-$(pwd)}"
[ -d "$DIR" ] || die "The given directory does not exist."

[ "$OUTARG" ] && OUTARG="$(realpath "$OUTARG")" || OUTARG="$(pwd)"
if [ -d "$OUTARG" ]; then
    OUTDIR="$OUTARG"
    OUTNAME="$(basename "$(realpath "$DIR")")" # realpath to catch `videotree .`
    [ "$OUTNAME" = "/" ] && OUTNAME=root
else
    OUTDIR="$(dirname "$OUTARG")"
    OUTNAME="$(basename "$OUTARG")"
fi
TODAY="$(date +%F)"

cd "$DIR"

# write a very verbose file with permission and owner information
call_to_tree "detailed" "$OUTDIR/$OUTNAME"      tree -af -DFins --dirsfirst --du --timefmt "%Y-%m-%d %T" ${ACCESSRIGHTS:+-pug}

# write a smaller version with only file size information
#call_to_tree "simple"   "$OUTDIR/$OUTNAME-tree" tree -ax -n --du -h --dirsfirst

echo "Done."

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6585 bytes --]

On Thursday, 8 December 2022 20:44:56 GMT Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> Am Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 06:36:14PM +0000 schrieb Wols Lists:
> > >  > I've pretty much reached a limit on my backups.  I'm up to a 16TB
> > >  > hard
> > >  > drive for one and even that won't last long.  Larger drives are much
> > >  > more costly.  A must have NAS is quickly approaching.  I've been
> > >  > searching around and find some things confusing.  I'm hoping someone
> > >  > can
> > >  > clear up that confusion.  I'm also debating what path to travel down.
> > >  > I'd also like to keep costs down as well.  That said, I don't mind
> > >  > paying a little more for one that would offer a much better option.
> > >  > 
> > >  > Path one, buy a NAS, possibly used, that has no drives.  If possible,
> > >  > I
> > >  > may even replace the OS that comes on it or upgrade if I can.  I'm
> > >  > not
> > >  > looking for fancy, or even RAID.  Just looking for a two bay NAS that
> > >  > will work.  First, what is a DAS?  Is that totally different than a
> > >  > NAS?  From what I've found, a DAS is not what I'm looking for since I
> > >  > want a ethernet connection and the ability to control things over the
> > >  > network.  It seems DAS lacks that feature but not real sure.  I'm not
> > >  > sure I can upgrade the software/OS on a DAS either.
> > >  > […]
> > > 
> > > DAS is direct-attached-storage. I don't think you want that.
> > 
> > Depends. If it fits in the safe, and can be connected using one of these
> > eSATA thingy connectors, it might be a very good choice.
> > 
> > […]
> > 
> > I get the impression Dale isn't actually PLANNING his disk storage. It's
> > just a case of "help I'm downloading all this stuff where do I put it!!!"
> 
> Haha, thanks for the laugh.

Actually this had me thinking what is the need to back up the ... Internet?  
If all this never-ending and recently accelerated download activity by Dale 
will continue and most of these video/audio files are available on some 
streaming server on the Internet, WHY do they need to be backed up locally?

I appreciate some of these video files may be rare finds, or there may be a 
risk some of these may be taken off the interwebs sooner or later.  This 
should leave a rather small subset of all downloads, which may merit a local 
backup, just in case.  I'd thought the availability of higher fiber download 
speeds negates the need for local backups, of readily downloadable media.

Of course, with personal and private data, plus configuration files, the 
backup need is clearer and the strategy simpler.

Perhaps the whole backup strategy for files downloaded from the Internet, Vs 
personal files, needs some critical (re)thinking.


> > Get yourself a basic 4-way DAS/JBOD setup, PLAN where you're putting all
> > this stuff, and plug in and remove drives as required. You don't need all
> > these huge drives if you think about what you're going to do with it all.
> 
> That’s actually a good idea. Either use a hot swap frame for an internal 5¼″
> PC bay, a desktop dock for bare drives or a multi-bay enclosure. The market
> is big, you have lots of choices. USB (with or without integrated hub),
> eSATA, one or two bays, etc: https://skinflint.co.uk/?cat=hddocks
> 
> Advantages:
> - no separate system to maintain just for storage: save $$$, time and power
> - very flexible: no chassis limitation on number of disks
> - no bulky external enclosures, each using a different power brick and cable
> - minimum volume to put into a safe (just get or make a bulk storage case)
> 
> Disadvantages:
> - not as “fancy” as a NAS
> - possibly not all disks can be used at the same time
> - physical handling of naked disks takes more care
> - LVM is not practical, so use each disk separately
> - you gotta remember which files are where¹
> - SATA connectors aren’t made for very many insertion cycles (I think the
>   spec says 50?), which doesn’t mean they endure much more, but still …
> 
> > (And while it takes time and hammers the system, I regularly record off
> > the
> > TV getting a 2GB .ts file, convert it to mp4 - same resolution - and
> > reduce
> > the size by an order of magnitude - maybe more.
> 
> Well, ts uses mpeg2 encoding, just like old video DVDs, which is very
> inefficient when compared with modern h264/h265. Modern digital TV broadcast
> uses h264 by now.

Depending on the PVR make/model I've seen 1080p resolution recordings with 
.m2ts and .ts file extensions, while the codecs inside them are the same.  
Here's the ffprobe output of a .ts recording containing a h264 video I 
captured recently off terrestrial TV transmission:

Input #0, mpegts, from '20221209 0147 - BBC ONE HD - Weather for the Week 
Ahead.ts':
  Duration: 00:13:01.44, start: 48999.919856, bitrate: 3744 kb/s
  Program 17540 
  Stream #0:0[0x19c9]: Video: h264 (High) ([27][0][0][0] / 0x001B), 
yuv420p(tv, bt709, progressive), 1920x1080 [SAR 1:1 DAR 16:9], 25 fps, 25 tbr, 
90k tbn, 50 tbc
  Stream #0:1[0x19ca](eng): Audio: aac_latm (LC) ([17][0][0][0] / 0x0011), 
48000 Hz, 5.1, fltp
  Stream #0:2[0x19ce](eng): Unknown: none ([17][0][0][0] / 0x0011) (visual 
impaired) (descriptions) (dependent)
  Stream #0:3[0x19cd](eng): Subtitle: dvb_subtitle ([6][0][0][0] / 0x0006)

The h264 codec means converting the .ts file to mp4 will not change much at 
all the size of the file.  If anything the mp4 file could increase in size if 
the audio stream and subtitles need to be transcoded.


> Incidentally, I got myself a new HDD today: an external 2.5″ WD Passport
> Ultra 5 TB with USB-C 3.0. Just because I like portable storage and also
> because I need temporary space if I want to convert my NAS RAID-Z2 to Z1.
> 
> 
> ¹ I do have several external USB disks, plus the big NAS. All of which don’t
> run very often. And I don’t want to turn them on just to look for a certain
> file. That’s why I have another little script. ;-) It uses the `tree`
> command to save the complete content listing of a directory into a text
> file and names the file automatically by the name of the directory it
> crawls. So if I want to find a file, I just need to grep through my text
> files.

Backup scripts utilising rsync, tar, etc. can output a log file which contains 
(some) details of all the backed up files.  Nothing as sophisticated as 
Frank's script, but it allows for a quick search against the name of the file 
or directory, before extraction.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Frank Steinmetzger]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2972 bytes --]

Am Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 01:13:50PM +0000 schrieb Michael:

> > > I get the impression Dale isn't actually PLANNING his disk storage. It's
> > > just a case of "help I'm downloading all this stuff where do I put it!!!"
> >
> > Haha, thanks for the laugh.
>
> Actually this had me thinking what is the need to back up the ... Internet?
> […]
>
> I appreciate some of these video files may be rare finds, or there may be a
> risk some of these may be taken off the interwebs sooner or later.  This
> should leave a rather small subset of all downloads, which may merit a local
> backup, just in case.  I'd thought the availability of higher fiber download
> speeds negates the need for local backups, of readily downloadable media.

Good points. I am a big fan of having stuff locally as well, because I don’t
want to be dependent on a company’s servers and a working Internet connection.
But this mostly applies to my mobile device, because I don’t have a data plan
for mobile Internet.

> > Well, ts uses mpeg2 encoding, just like old video DVDs, which is very
> > inefficient when compared with modern h264/h265. Modern digital TV broadcast
> > uses h264 by now.
>
> Depending on the PVR make/model I've seen 1080p resolution recordings with
> .m2ts and .ts file extensions, while the codecs inside them are the same.

I wasn’t aware that ts could contain h264. But then again—I never really
bothered with live TV recordings in recent years. These days, if I find
something interesting, I download the show form the TV channel’s website
(called Mediathek in Germany, a word play on Bibliothek, meaning library).
Interestingly though, the picture quality is noticably worse than what I
receive via DVB-T.

> > ¹ I do have several external USB disks, plus the big NAS. All of which don’t
> > run very often. And I don’t want to turn them on just to look for a certain
> > file. That’s why I have another little script. ;-) It uses the `tree`
> > command to save the complete content listing of a directory into a text
> > file and names the file automatically by the name of the directory it
> > crawls. So if I want to find a file, I just need to grep through my text
> > files.
>
> Backup scripts utilising rsync, tar, etc. can output a log file which contains
> (some) details of all the backed up files.  Nothing as sophisticated as
> Frank's script, but it allows for a quick search against the name of the file
> or directory, before extraction.

Naturally, I just discovered two bugs in the script while I was re-reading
my mail. One of them broke the creation of the symlink which points to the
most recent version of a script output. The other prevented normal operation
if only gzip was available amongst the used compressors.

-- 
Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.

We promise nothing, but that we keep.

[-- Attachment #1.2: FileTree --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 4193 bytes --]

#!/usr/bin/env bash

# history
# 2018-02-10 initial version
# 2020-06-10 added -a option
# ????-??-?? gzip result
# 2021-03-22 put current date into output filename
# 2021-04-06 code refactoring with more functions and input sanitisation
# 2021-12-22 prefer zstd over gzip
# 2022-01-23 don't create symlink if there is no previous file
# 2022-01-30 added xz to compressors
# 2022-12-08 some cleanup, added -C and -K options
# 2022-12-09 bug fixes

die() {
    echo "${@}" > /dev/stderr
    exit 1
}

usage() {
    cat <<-EOF
	Usage: $(basename "$0") [-o NAME] [DIR]
	A wrapper to tree, it writes the content of DIR into a text file.
	The file is named after DIR and the current date, and symlink to the
	most recent version is set. The file is automatically compressed to
	zstd, xz or gzip, whichever is available in that order.

	Options:
	  -a    access attributes: owner, group, permissions
	  -C    do not compress result file
	  -K    do not keep backup of existing file in case of overwriting
	  -o    The destination where to write the trees.
	        Default: .
	        If it is a directory: write in there
	        If it is a filename: use that as base. If not,
	        use the name of the directory as name base.
	EOF
}

test_writable() {
    touch "$1" 2>/dev/null || die "Cannot create file in $(dirname "$1")."
}

# run tree and redirect output to destination file
call_to_tree() {
    WHICH="$1"
    OUTPATH="$2-$1"
    shift 2

    declare TREE_ARGS
    TREE_ARGS+=("$@")
    TREE_ARGS+=("-o")
    TREE_ARGS+=("$DATED_PATH")

    local DATED_PATH="$OUTPATH-$TODAY"
    local EXT
    local PACK
    local CREATE_SYMLINK=no

    if [ "$COMPRESS" = "no" ]; then
        0
    elif command -v zstd > /dev/null; then
        PACK="zstd --rm -q -13"
        EXT=".zst"
    elif command -v xz > /dev/null; then
        PACK="xz"
        EXT=".xz"
    else
        PACK="gzip"
        EXT=".gz"
    fi

    ls "$OUTPATH-"* > /dev/null 2>&1 && CREATE_SYMLINK=yes

    # pack yet unpacked file
    if [ "$COMPRESS" != "no" ]; then
        [ -f "$DATED_PATH" ] && [ ! -f "$DATED_PATH$EXT" ] && $PACK "$DATED_PATH"
    fi
    # move away old file
    if [ -f "$DATED_PATH$EXT" ]; then
        [ "$KEEP_OLD" = "no" ] && rm -f "$DATED_PATH$EXT" || mv -f "$DATED_PATH$EXT" "$DATED_PATH.old$EXT"
    fi

    test_writable "$DATED_PATH"
    echo "Writing $WHICH tree to $(realpath "$DATED_PATH")$EXT"

    BEGIN_TIME=$(date +%s)
    "${TREE_ARGS[@]}"
    END_TIME=$(date +%s)

    echo >> "$DATED_PATH"
    df -BM . | awk 'NR==2 { print "Size: " $3 "   Available: " $4 "   Usage: " $5; }' >> "$DATED_PATH"
    [ "$PACK" ] && $PACK "$DATED_PATH"

    if [ "$CREATE_SYMLINK" = yes ]; then
        if [ -e "$OUTPATH" ] && [ ! -L "$OUTPATH" ]; then
            echo "Cannot set symlink, filename already taken."
        else
            echo "Setting symlink $OUTPATH -> $(basename "$DATED_PATH")"
            ln -sfn "$(basename "$DATED_PATH$EXT")" "$OUTPATH$EXT"
        fi
    fi

    echo "Reading of directory took $((END_TIME - BEGIN_TIME)) seconds."
}

# parse arguments
unset ACCESSRIGHTS
unset COMPRESS
unset KEEP_OLD

while getopts "CKaho:" OPTION
do
    case $OPTION in
        C) COMPRESS=no ;;
        K) KEEP_OLD=no ;;
        a) ACCESSRIGHTS=yes ;;
        h) usage; exit 0 ;;
        o) OUTARG="$OPTARG" ;;
    esac
done
shift $((OPTIND-1)); OPTIND=1

# input sanitisation and derivation of destination paths
DIR="${1:-$(pwd)}"
[ -d "$DIR" ] || die "The given directory does not exist."

[ "$OUTARG" ] && OUTARG="$(realpath "$OUTARG")" || OUTARG="$(pwd)"
if [ -d "$OUTARG" ]; then
    OUTDIR="$OUTARG"
    OUTNAME="$(basename "$(realpath "$DIR")")" # realpath to catch `videotree .`
    [ "$OUTNAME" = "/" ] && OUTNAME=root
else
    OUTDIR="$(dirname "$OUTARG")"
    OUTNAME="$(basename "$OUTARG")"
fi
TODAY="$(date +%F)"

cd "$DIR"

# write a very verbose file with permission and owner information
call_to_tree "detailed" "$OUTDIR/$OUTNAME"      tree -af -DFins --dirsfirst --du --timefmt "%Y-%m-%d %T" ${ACCESSRIGHTS:+-pug}

# write a smaller version with only file size information
#call_to_tree "simple"   "$OUTDIR/$OUTNAME-tree" tree -ax -n --du -h --dirsfirst

echo "Done."

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[OT] Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Peter Humphrey]

On Friday, 9 December 2022 13:38:32 GMT Frank Steinmetzger wrote:

> ...I never really bothered with live TV recordings in recent years. These
> days, if I find something interesting, I download the show form the TV
> channel’s website (called Mediathek in Germany, a word play on Bibliothek,
> meaning library). Interestingly though, the picture quality is noticably
> worse than what I receive via DVB-T.

I do nearly the opposite: I record every TV programme I want to watch, then 
watch it at my leisure. That way I can skip through all the adverts, which I 
loathe [1]. Freesat in the UK allows recording of radio series as well, which 
Sky cannot do, so it's easy to capture late-night series and listen to them at 
my convenience. I have something like 600 radio programmes on my satellite 
box.

1.  Mind you, UK TV adverts are nowhere near as gross as the screeching 
horrors I was subjected to in Minneapolis 30 years ago.

-- 
Regards,
Peter.

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Frank Steinmetzger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1989 bytes --]

Am Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 02:27:07PM +0000 schrieb Peter Humphrey:
> On Friday, 9 December 2022 13:38:32 GMT Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
>
> > ...I never really bothered with live TV recordings in recent years. These
> > days, if I find something interesting, I download the show form the TV
> > channel’s website (called Mediathek in Germany, a word play on Bibliothek,
> > meaning library). Interestingly though, the picture quality is noticably
> > worse than what I receive via DVB-T.
>
> I do nearly the opposite: I record every TV programme I want to watch, then
> watch it at my leisure.

This summer I bought my first TV ever since I live on my own – after about
20 years of not having one. I haven’t missed TV and still don’t (just wanted
a bigger screen for movies played from the PC and to relax on the couch in
the evening).

> That way I can skip through all the adverts, which I loathe [1].

Who doesn’t? With my little antenna, I get all the public stations with good
quality and no ads, but I don’t care for the encrypted private, ad-financed
channels for which I need to pay a yearly fee these days (on top of the
mandatory public TV “tax”).

> Freesat in the UK allows recording of radio series as well, which Sky
> cannot do, so it's easy to capture late-night series and listen to them at
> my convenience. I have something like 600 radio programmes on my satellite
> box.

Ooof, I listen to podcasts and can barely keep up, time-wise. To have a
conneciton to the original topic: I still have lots of movies and series on
the NAS which I haven’t even started to watch.

> 1.  Mind you, UK TV adverts are nowhere near as gross as the screeching
> horrors I was subjected to in Minneapolis 30 years ago.

I can only imagine.

-- 
Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.

Bees aren’t at all hard working, they just can’t fly any slower.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Peter Humphrey]

On Friday, 9 December 2022 14:38:14 GMT Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> Am Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 02:27:07PM +0000 schrieb Peter Humphrey:
> > 1.  Mind you, UK TV adverts are nowhere near as gross as the screeching
> > horrors I was subjected to in Minneapolis 30 years ago.
> 
> I can only imagine.

Actually, I doubt you can unless you've experienced something like it - in 
which case I sympathise.   :)

-- 
Regards,
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> Am Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 01:13:50PM +0000 schrieb Michael:
>
>
> Good points. I am a big fan of having stuff locally as well, because I don’t
> want to be dependent on a company’s servers and a working Internet connection.
> But this mostly applies to my mobile device, because I don’t have a data plan
> for mobile Internet.
>
>

That is my reason.  I already have some videos that are no longer
available.  Even references to the video ever existing is hard to find. 
If I lose them, I may never get them again.  So, I try to keep copies
and hang onto them.  Plus, while I've been fortunate and have a good
stable internet connection, both with DSL and fibre, I don't know what
next year or even next month will bring.  You add in all the censorship
that is going on, it gets even worse.  I have many videos that I
downloaded from youtube that have been removed because of basically, a
political position.  The people running Youtube doesn't like the content
so it was removed.  Keep in mind, those videos were instructional and
nothing about illegal activity or anything.  They just don't like the
content.  It's also why other sites came along so people could post the
exact same type of content. 

I don't always save everything but when I find a video that might be
useful, whether it is about repairing my old washing machine, repairs to
a firearm, planting trees from seeds or just a funny cat video, I save
it if it has some future value.  The bad thing, some channels that have
been removed for a small amount of videos Youtube didn't like also had
other videos removed as well.  I've noticed entire channels disappear. 
I can't trust the people running video websites to allow content even
for short term.  Post something they don't like, true or not, they can
and often do remove content and often remove entire channels. 

I don't trust my data to be on just one set of hard drives either, it's
why I make backup copies.  If one of my main drives lets the smoke out,
I've got a backup to restore from.  I wouldn't mind having two sets of
backups and one day, I just may.  I may end up with two NAS boxes, each
a independent backup copy.  May on alternate weeks or something.  If
possible, I wouldn't mind having backups where I can even go back in
time a bit.  Just in case I need a file that I deleted and then was
deleted from the backups as well. 

If this Raspberry thing works and is fairly cheap, I may end up with two
NAS boxes as backups and a NAS box as the actual storage itself. 

Since I can't trust people who run websites, I have to trust myself. 
Keep local copies, back those up just in case. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

P. S.  Seamonkey still doesn't automatically fetch emails.  It's really
annoying.  :/

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Wols Lists]

On 09/12/2022 13:38, Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
>> Depending on the PVR make/model I've seen 1080p resolution recordings with
>> .m2ts and .ts file extensions, while the codecs inside them are the same.

> I wasn’t aware that ts could contain h264. But then again—I never really
> bothered with live TV recordings in recent years. These days, if I find
> something interesting, I download the show form the TV channel’s website
> (called Mediathek in Germany, a word play on Bibliothek, meaning library).
> Interestingly though, the picture quality is noticably worse than what I
> receive via DVB-T.
> 
I think this is confusing CONTAINER and CODEC.

.ts is a container format, h264 is a codec. I don't understand it 
myself, either, but think of ts as your directory structure and h264 as 
your file structure.

Incidentally, sticking this stuff in a .tar is probably okay - that's 
just another container, but sticking it in a .tar.gz is not, the gz is 
your codec and will make the file BIGGER in all probability.

Cheers,
Wol

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Frank Steinmetzger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1940 bytes --]

Am Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 09:20:17AM +0000 schrieb Wols Lists:

> > > Depending on the PVR make/model I've seen 1080p resolution recordings with
> > > .m2ts and .ts file extensions, while the codecs inside them are the same.
-------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> > I wasn’t aware that ts could contain h264. But then again—I never really
---------------------------------^^^^^^^
> > bothered with live TV recordings in recent years.

> I think this is confusing CONTAINER and CODEC.

Where do we confuse those two? We specifically talked of codecs and
“contain”.

> .ts is a container format, h264 is a codec. I don't understand it myself,
> either but think of ts as your directory structure and h264 as your file
> structure.

Now you are confusing me. You say you don’t understand it, but then explain
it. TS is like AVI and MKV: a file structure for the payload data. And
payload data can be all kinds of stuff, from ASS plaintext subtitles, over
opus audio to mpeg2 or h264 video.

> Incidentally, sticking this stuff in a .tar is probably okay - that's just
> another container, but sticking it in a .tar.gz is not, the gz is your codec
> and will make the file BIGGER in all probability.

Tar does not compress, it simply puts all inputs in a 1:1 stream. It does
add some metadata (filename and so on). Packers reduce data volume by
increasing information-per-byte. So if the total information stays the same
(for lossless coding), the number of bytes decreases. Encoded video data
ideally has even entropy. It is indistinguishable from random noise. That’s
why compressing it again does not yield anything, or even adds some volume
again.

-- 
Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.

“Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind.”
 – John F. Kennedy

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Wols Lists]

On 10/12/2022 16:19, Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> Where do we confuse those two? We specifically talked of codecs and
> “contain”.

"I didn't know .ts could contain h264".

If .ts is the container, then surely the assumption is it can contain 
any codec? If not, why not?

(Yes I do get the impression I didn't read the OP properly. But then, 
the OP didn't make sense properly so I'm not surprised I got it wrong :-)

Cheers,
Wol

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 825 bytes --]

On Saturday, 10 December 2022 16:30:03 GMT Wols Lists wrote:
> On 10/12/2022 16:19, Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> > Where do we confuse those two? We specifically talked of codecs and
> > “contain”.
> 
> "I didn't know .ts could contain h264".
> 
> If .ts is the container, then surely the assumption is it can contain
> any codec? If not, why not?

Not any codec.  Some container formats are only compatible with certain 
codecs, or rather the other way around.  Have a look here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_video_container_formats

I suppose the answer to 'why not' boils down to the whatever structure and 
data the container format is designed to be compatible with, but I don't know 
more than this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Informatik-Containerformate-Beispiele.svg


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[David Rosenbaum]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1036 bytes --]

Someone has hacked my ph.im 44 years old an pay for every thing.house car
an wifi

Dave

On Sat, Dec 10, 2022, 12:28 PM Michael <confabulate@kintzios.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, 10 December 2022 16:30:03 GMT Wols Lists wrote:
> > On 10/12/2022 16:19, Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> > > Where do we confuse those two? We specifically talked of codecs and
> > > “contain”.
> >
> > "I didn't know .ts could contain h264".
> >
> > If .ts is the container, then surely the assumption is it can contain
> > any codec? If not, why not?
>
> Not any codec.  Some container formats are only compatible with certain
> codecs, or rather the other way around.  Have a look here:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_video_container_formats
>
> I suppose the answer to 'why not' boils down to the whatever structure and
> data the container format is designed to be compatible with, but I don't
> know
> more than this.
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Informatik-Containerformate-Beispiele.svg
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1736 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[David Rosenbaum]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2125 bytes --]

Thanks

Dave

On Sat, Dec 10, 2022, 11:19 AM Frank Steinmetzger <Warp_7@gmx.de> wrote:

> Am Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 09:20:17AM +0000 schrieb Wols Lists:
>
> > > > Depending on the PVR make/model I've seen 1080p resolution
> recordings with
> > > > .m2ts and .ts file extensions, while the codecs inside them are the
> same.
> -------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > > I wasn’t aware that ts could contain h264. But then again—I never
> really
> ---------------------------------^^^^^^^
> > > bothered with live TV recordings in recent years.
>
> > I think this is confusing CONTAINER and CODEC.
>
> Where do we confuse those two? We specifically talked of codecs and
> “contain”.
>
> > .ts is a container format, h264 is a codec. I don't understand it myself,
> > either but think of ts as your directory structure and h264 as your file
> > structure.
>
> Now you are confusing me. You say you don’t understand it, but then explain
> it. TS is like AVI and MKV: a file structure for the payload data. And
> payload data can be all kinds of stuff, from ASS plaintext subtitles, over
> opus audio to mpeg2 or h264 video.
>
> > Incidentally, sticking this stuff in a .tar is probably okay - that's
> just
> > another container, but sticking it in a .tar.gz is not, the gz is your
> codec
> > and will make the file BIGGER in all probability.
>
> Tar does not compress, it simply puts all inputs in a 1:1 stream. It does
> add some metadata (filename and so on). Packers reduce data volume by
> increasing information-per-byte. So if the total information stays the same
> (for lossless coding), the number of bytes decreases. Encoded video data
> ideally has even entropy. It is indistinguishable from random noise. That’s
> why compressing it again does not yield anything, or even adds some volume
> again.
>
> --
> Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’
> Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.
>
> “Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind.”
>  – John F. Kennedy
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2568 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 8:13 AM Michael <confabulate@kintzios.com> wrote:
>
> Actually this had me thinking what is the need to back up the ... Internet?

I'm sure the NSA knows the answer to this.  Based on discussions I've
had with people who are into such things they basically have their own
Wayback machine, except it obviously doesn't respect robots.txt or
takedown requests.

I kind of wish the NSA sold IT services to the general public.  I just
assume they probably have root on all my devices and their own backups
of everything on them.  It would be nice if I had a disaster if I
could just pay them to buy back a copy of my data, instead of having
to have my own completely redundant backups.

I'm personally using duplicity for encrypted cloud backups of the
stuff that is most critical (documents, recent photos, etc), AWS
Glacier for stuff I want long-term backups of (older photos mostly),
and then bacula to store local copies of everything I have any
interest in because that is easier than trying to restore it all off
of Amazon if I lose an array or whatever.  AWS Glacier is actually
pretty cheap for backup, but be prepared to pay a fair bit for
restoration.  I'd only need to go to them in a serious disaster like a
house fire, so having to pay $100 or whatever to get them to mail me a
hard drive with my data isn't really that big of a deal.  My backups
are generally one-way affairs.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

Wols Lists wrote:
> On 08/12/2022 13:31, Mark Knecht wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 5:38 AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com
>> <mailto:rdalek1967@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>  >
>>  > Howdy,
>>  >
>>  > I've pretty much reached a limit on my backups.  I'm up to a 16TB
>> hard
>>  > drive for one and even that won't last long.  Larger drives are much
>>  > more costly.  A must have NAS is quickly approaching.  I've been
>>  > searching around and find some things confusing.  I'm hoping
>> someone can
>>  > clear up that confusion.  I'm also debating what path to travel down.
>>  > I'd also like to keep costs down as well.  That said, I don't mind
>>  > paying a little more for one that would offer a much better option.
>>  >
>>  > Path one, buy a NAS, possibly used, that has no drives.  If
>> possible, I
>>  > may even replace the OS that comes on it or upgrade if I can.  I'm
>> not
>>  > looking for fancy, or even RAID.  Just looking for a two bay NAS that
>>  > will work.  First, what is a DAS?  Is that totally different than a
>>  > NAS?  From what I've found, a DAS is not what I'm looking for since I
>>  > want a ethernet connection and the ability to control things over the
>>  > network.  It seems DAS lacks that feature but not real sure.  I'm not
>>  > sure I can upgrade the software/OS on a DAS either.
>>  >
>>  > Next thing.  Let's say a NAS comes with two 4TB drives for a total of
>>  > 8TB of capacity from the factory, using LVM or similar software I
>>  > assume.  Is that limited to that capacity or can I for example
>> replace
>>  > one or both drives with for example 14TB drives for a total of
>> 28TBs of
>>  > capacity?  If one does that, let's say it uses LVM, can I somehow
>> move
>>  > data as well or is that beyond the abilities of a NAS?  Could it
>> be done
>>  > inside my computer for example?  Does this vary by brand or even
>> model?
>>  >
>>  > Path two, I've researched building a NAS using a Raspberry Pi 4
>> 8GB as
>>  > another option.  They come as parts, cases too, but the newer and
>> faster
>>  > models of Raspberry Pi 4 with more ram seem to work pretty well.  The
>>  > old slower models with small amounts of ram don't fair as well. 
>> While I
>>  > want a descent speed, I'm not looking for or expecting it to be
>>  > blazingly fast.  I just wonder, if from a upgrade and expansion
>> point of
>>  > view, if building a NAS would be better.  I've also noticed, it seems
>>  > all Raspberry things come with a display port.  That means I could
>> hook
>>  > up a monitor and mouse/keyboard when needed.  That could be a bonus.
>>  > Heck, I may can even put some sort of Gentoo on that thing.  :-D
>>  >
>>  > One reason I'm wanting to go this route, I'm trying to keep it
>> small and
>>  > able to fit inside my fire safe.  I plan to buy a media type safe
>> that
>>  > is larger but right now, it needs to fit inside my current safe. 
>> Most
>>  > of the 2 bay NAS or a Raspberry Pi based NAS are fairly small. 
>> They not
>>  > much bigger than the three external hard drives and a couple bare
>> drives
>>  > that currently occupy my safe.
>>  >
>>  > One thing I'd like to have no matter what path I go down, the
>> ability to
>>  > encrypt the data.  My current backup drives are encrypted and I'd
>> like
>>  > to keep it that way.  If that is possible to do.  I suspect the
>>  > Raspberry option would since I'd control the OS/software placed on
>> it.
>>  > I could be wrong tho.
>>  >
>>  > One last thing.  Are there any NAS type boxes that I should
>> absolutely
>>  > avoid if I go that route?  Maybe it is a model that has serious
>>  > limitations or has other problems.  I think the DAS thing may be
>> one for
>>  > me to avoid but I'm not for sure what limits it has.  Google
>> didn't help
>>  > a lot. It also could be as simple as, avoid any model that says
>> this in
>>  > the description or uses some type of software that is bad or limits
>>  > options.
>>  >
>>  > Thoughts?  Info to share?  Ideas on a best path forward?  Buy already
>>  > built or build?
>>  >
>>  > Thanks.
>>  >
>>  > Dale
>>  >
>>  > :-)  :-)
>>
>> DAS is direct-attached-storage. I don't think you want that.
>
> Depends. If it fits in the safe, and can be connected using one of
> these eSATA thingy connectors, it might be a very good choice.
>>
>> Synology (sp?) is sort of a big name in home & small office NAS
>> boxes. You can buy the boxes with or without drives. I suspect you
>> won't like the prices.
>
> I've been looking :-) I think the empty box costs more than the drives
> you're going to put in it ...
>>
>> I wonder if you might consider what data on your backups needs to be
>> immediately available and which doesn't. Possibly buy an 8TB USB
>> drive, take a bunch of the lower priority data off of your current
>> backup thus system freeing space and move on from there?
>>
>> I built my NAS devices using old computers ala Wol's suggestion to me
>> maybe a year ago. They work for me but don't have the fastest network
>> interfaces.
>>
> I get the impression Dale isn't actually PLANNING his disk storage.
> It's just a case of "help I'm downloading all this stuff where do I
> put it!!!"
>
> How much storage do you have in your actual computer? How much space
> do you need IN ONE PARTITION? Can you get an external disk caddy that
> you just slot bare drives in?
>
> I've no doubt you have good reason for wanting all this storage. I
> just fail to see why you need huge drives for it if most of the time
> you're not doing anything with it.
>
> Get yourself a basic 4-way DAS/JBOD setup, PLAN where you're putting
> all this stuff, and plug in and remove drives as required. You don't
> need all these huge drives if you think about what you're going to do
> with it all. (And while it takes time and hammers the system, I
> regularly record off the TV getting a 2GB .ts file, convert it to mp4
> - same resolution - and reduce the size by an order of magnitude -
> maybe more.
>
> If you've got two hot-swap JBOD enclosures, that's brilliant. You can
> stream from your media centre to a drive, swap it out, and use a
> second system to then organise your collection.
>
> Oh - and if you are worried about disks going walkabout, just LUKS the
> whole disk, and without the key nobody can read it ... build your
> partitions or whatever over it.
>
> Cheers,
> Wol
>
>
>

Getting some good info from different folks.  Picking this to reply to,
last message I read.  I do have a lot of data in my system.  I need the
info at random plus want to keep a backup copy.  If for no other reason,
in case I accidentally delete or overwrite something.  I've done that
before.  I also want backups in case of a sudden drive failure without
warning.  This is about my backup copy, not the drives in my system that
I regularly use.  I have a large Cooler Master HAF-932 case.  I still
got room there.  I may at some point build a NAS for regular storage and
everyday use.  While I would like something power efficient and able to
scale for that, I think a 2 bay, certainly a 4 bay, NAS will give me
plenty of room to grow for my backups.  A NAS for everyday use tho,
that's for another day. 

I kinda like my current setup except that one large directory, it's to
big for a single external hard drive.  I need to span that data over two
or more drives.  That means either a NAS of some sort or another
system.  Since any system I build from old parts I have laying around
would be to large, a NAS is the best long term route.  I mentioned
before, I wish I could split my backup script so that about half of the
data goes to one drive and the other half to a 2nd drive.  If I knew of
a way to tell rsync to split files starting with 'a' through 'k' to one
drive and files starting with 'm' through 'z' to the second drive, then
I could span across two drives without needing LVM or similar software. 
I'm not aware of a way to do that without a ton of work and having to
update my scripts each time I add or remove a directory within the
larger directory. 

Some of this is sort of hard to put into text unless I write half a book
about it.  Basically, I'm needing a way to have external drives with
enough capacity to hold a large directory.  Also some room for growth
and even upgrades would be nice.  Whether I buy a prebuilt NAS or build
one, whichever is the better option and affordable.

Since I forgot to hit send after typing the above, I've got more replies
to read. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 7:37 AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Path two, I've researched building a NAS using a Raspberry Pi 4 8GB as
> another option.  They come as parts, cases too, but the newer and faster
> models of Raspberry Pi 4 with more ram seem to work pretty well.

For this sort of application the key improvement of the Pi4 over its
predecessors is IO.  The Pi4 has USB3 and gigabit ethernet, and they
are independent, so you get the full bandwidth of both (in theory).
That is a massive step up over USB2 and 100Mbps ethernet that consumes
the USB2 bandwidth.

I can't really speak to the commercial solutions as I haven't used
them.  Main concern there is just the limited capacity, lack of
expandability, and so on.  Some are no doubt better than others in
those regards.

As far as DIY goes, you can definitely do all of that with a Pi4.
Don't expect it to perform as well as sticking it on a decent amd64
motherboard, but for backup and saturating the throughput of 1 hard
drive at a time it can probably mostly make do.  Encryption can be
accomplished either with cryptsetup or a filesystem that has native
encryption like ZFS.  I've done both on Pi4s for storage.  I will warn
you that zfs encryption is not hardware-optimized on ARM, so that will
not perform very well - it will be completely functional, but you will
get CPU-bound.  Linux-native encryption (ie cryptsetup/LUKS) will use
hardware capabilities on the Pi4, assuming you're using something it
supports (I think I'm using AES which performs adequately).

For the Pi4 you would need to use USB storage, but for hard drives IMO
this is perfectly acceptable, especially on a Pi.  The gigabit
ethernet and internal IO of the Pi is only going to max out one hard
drive no matter how you connect it, so the USB3 interface will not be
a bottleneck.  On ARM SBCs that have PCIe you don't really get any
better performance with an HBA and SATA/SCSI simply because the board
IO is already pretty limited.  USB3 is actually pretty fast  for
spinning disks, but depending on the number of hosts/etc it could
become a bottleneck on a decent motherboard with a large number of
drives.  If you're talking about an amd64 with a 10GbE NIC and a
decent HBA with sufficient PCIe lanes for both then obviously that is
going to saturate more spinning disks.  For NVMe you absolutely need
to go that route (probably need to consider server-class hardware
too).

I use USB3 hard drives on Pis for my bulk storage because I care about
capacity far more than performance, and with a distributed filesystem
the performance is still good enough for what I'm doing.  If I needed
block storage for containers/VMs/whatever then use a different
solution, but that gets expensive fast.

Oh, one other thing.  One of your issues is that you're using a backup
solution that just dumps everything into a single file/directory and
requires all the backup storage to be mounted at the same time in a
single filesystem.  There are solutions that do not have this
requirement - particularly ones that are adaptable to tape.
Unfortunately the best FOSS option I've found for this on linux is
bacula and that is a serious PITA to use.  If anybody has a better one
I'm all ears (the requirement is to be able to store a backup across
multiple hard drives, and this can't involve first storing it all in
one place and then splitting it up later, or having more than one
storage drive attached at the same time - basically I want to treat
hard drives like tapes).

If you're storing a LOT of backups then LTO is another option.  Every
time I do the math on that option it never makes sense unless you're
backing up a LOT of data.  If you got to a point where your backups
consumed 10+ max-capacity hard drives it might start to make sense.
Those USB3 hard drives on sale for $15/TB though are just really hard
to beat when the tapes aren't all that much cheaper and the drives
cost $1k.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 7:37 AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Path two, I've researched building a NAS using a Raspberry Pi 4 8GB as
>> another option.  They come as parts, cases too, but the newer and faster
>> models of Raspberry Pi 4 with more ram seem to work pretty well.
> For this sort of application the key improvement of the Pi4 over its
> predecessors is IO.  The Pi4 has USB3 and gigabit ethernet, and they
> are independent, so you get the full bandwidth of both (in theory).
> That is a massive step up over USB2 and 100Mbps ethernet that consumes
> the USB2 bandwidth.
>
> I can't really speak to the commercial solutions as I haven't used
> them.  Main concern there is just the limited capacity, lack of
> expandability, and so on.  Some are no doubt better than others in
> those regards.
>
> As far as DIY goes, you can definitely do all of that with a Pi4.
> Don't expect it to perform as well as sticking it on a decent amd64
> motherboard, but for backup and saturating the throughput of 1 hard
> drive at a time it can probably mostly make do.  Encryption can be
> accomplished either with cryptsetup or a filesystem that has native
> encryption like ZFS.  I've done both on Pi4s for storage.  I will warn
> you that zfs encryption is not hardware-optimized on ARM, so that will
> not perform very well - it will be completely functional, but you will
> get CPU-bound.  Linux-native encryption (ie cryptsetup/LUKS) will use
> hardware capabilities on the Pi4, assuming you're using something it
> supports (I think I'm using AES which performs adequately).
>
> For the Pi4 you would need to use USB storage, but for hard drives IMO
> this is perfectly acceptable, especially on a Pi.  The gigabit
> ethernet and internal IO of the Pi is only going to max out one hard
> drive no matter how you connect it, so the USB3 interface will not be
> a bottleneck.  On ARM SBCs that have PCIe you don't really get any
> better performance with an HBA and SATA/SCSI simply because the board
> IO is already pretty limited.  USB3 is actually pretty fast  for
> spinning disks, but depending on the number of hosts/etc it could
> become a bottleneck on a decent motherboard with a large number of
> drives.  If you're talking about an amd64 with a 10GbE NIC and a
> decent HBA with sufficient PCIe lanes for both then obviously that is
> going to saturate more spinning disks.  For NVMe you absolutely need
> to go that route (probably need to consider server-class hardware
> too).
>
> I use USB3 hard drives on Pis for my bulk storage because I care about
> capacity far more than performance, and with a distributed filesystem
> the performance is still good enough for what I'm doing.  If I needed
> block storage for containers/VMs/whatever then use a different
> solution, but that gets expensive fast.
>
> Oh, one other thing.  One of your issues is that you're using a backup
> solution that just dumps everything into a single file/directory and
> requires all the backup storage to be mounted at the same time in a
> single filesystem.  There are solutions that do not have this
> requirement - particularly ones that are adaptable to tape.
> Unfortunately the best FOSS option I've found for this on linux is
> bacula and that is a serious PITA to use.  If anybody has a better one
> I'm all ears (the requirement is to be able to store a backup across
> multiple hard drives, and this can't involve first storing it all in
> one place and then splitting it up later, or having more than one
> storage drive attached at the same time - basically I want to treat
> hard drives like tapes).
>
> If you're storing a LOT of backups then LTO is another option.  Every
> time I do the math on that option it never makes sense unless you're
> backing up a LOT of data.  If you got to a point where your backups
> consumed 10+ max-capacity hard drives it might start to make sense.
> Those USB3 hard drives on sale for $15/TB though are just really hard
> to beat when the tapes aren't all that much cheaper and the drives
> cost $1k.
>

From my understanding, you are right about USB3 and GB ethernet being
the big change.  They also have more memory and faster CPUs but if you
bottleneck the data with slow USB and ethernet with the old ones, who
needs a fast CPU?  I think they realized that the USB and ethernet had
to improve.  It got better from there. 

https://shop.allnetchina.cn/collections/sata-hat/products/dual-sata-hat-open-frame-for-raspberry-pi-4

I found the above.  From my understanding, it allows a SATA drive to
connect to either 2 or 4 bays.  That card appears to connect with USB3
ports but I can't see the bottom.  Odds are, especially if data is
encrypted, the CPU will likely max out before the USB and ethernet.  I'd
think anyway.  From what little I've read, they seem to be pretty fast. 

One thing I like about the Raspberry option, I can upgrade it later.  I
can simply take out the old, put in new, upgrade done.  If I buy a
prebuilt NAS, they pretty much are what they are if upgrading isn't a
option.  Some of the more expensive ones may be upgradable, maybe. 

I just wonder, could I use that board and just hook it to my USB port
and a external power supply and skip the Raspberry Pi part?  I'd bet not
tho.  ;-)

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 6:30 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> One thing I like about the Raspberry option, I can upgrade it later.  I
> can simply take out the old, put in new, upgrade done.  If I buy a
> prebuilt NAS, they pretty much are what they are if upgrading isn't a
> option.  Some of the more expensive ones may be upgradable, maybe.

The NAS gets you a nice box.  The nice box means fixed capacity.

I just use USB3 external hard drives.  They're cheaper and easy to
interface.  USB3 also has been less likely to give me ATA interface
errors compared to SATA.

> I just wonder, could I use that board and just hook it to my USB port
> and a external power supply and skip the Raspberry Pi part?  I'd bet not
> tho.  ;-)

Not that one, but USB3-SATA interfaces exist and aren't that
expensive.  You can also get nice little enclosures.  You can have as
many hard drives as you want on a PC that way, or whatever the USB3
limit is.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 6:30 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>> One thing I like about the Raspberry option, I can upgrade it later.  I
>> can simply take out the old, put in new, upgrade done.  If I buy a
>> prebuilt NAS, they pretty much are what they are if upgrading isn't a
>> option.  Some of the more expensive ones may be upgradable, maybe.
> The NAS gets you a nice box.  The nice box means fixed capacity.
>
> I just use USB3 external hard drives.  They're cheaper and easy to
> interface.  USB3 also has been less likely to give me ATA interface
> errors compared to SATA.
>
>> I just wonder, could I use that board and just hook it to my USB port
>> and a external power supply and skip the Raspberry Pi part?  I'd bet not
>> tho.  ;-)
> Not that one, but USB3-SATA interfaces exist and aren't that
> expensive.  You can also get nice little enclosures.  You can have as
> many hard drives as you want on a PC that way, or whatever the USB3
> limit is.
>

One thing about all the recent upgrades, I have extra hard drives. 
Also, if I go the Raspberry path and can still use cryptsetup, LVM etc,
I can just move the drives I'm currently using and may not even have to
move a lot of data around.  Just insert a drive, add another drive with
LVM to increase space and done for the large directory.  Then in other
two bays, do the same or have two different LVM pools or whatever they
called.  All total, OS and all, I have almost 42TBs of storage inside my
running system.  I have a 16TB new drive for backup of large directory
and a 8TB and 6TB for other data backups which include /root, my
Documents directory and such. 

One way or another, I'm going to figure this out.  lol  I got too.  ;-)

I think back sometimes, I started out with a 30GB hard drive waaaay back
in 2003.  I thought I had problems then.  O_O 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Peter Humphrey]

On Friday, 9 December 2022 00:03:29 GMT Dale wrote:

> I think back sometimes, I started out with a 30GB hard drive waaaay back
> in 2003.  I thought I had problems then.

Then you won't want to know that I paid extra in 1990 for an 85MB drive in my 
first PC. No, not GB: MB.

-- 
Regards,
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Friday, 9 December 2022 00:03:29 GMT Dale wrote:
>
>> I think back sometimes, I started out with a 30GB hard drive waaaay back
>> in 2003.  I thought I had problems then.
> Then you won't want to know that I paid extra in 1990 for an 85MB drive in my 
> first PC. No, not GB: MB.
>

I worked at a puter place in the late 80's.  They had old hard drives
that were only a few MBs and had 14" platters.  Yes, 14" platters. 
Funny thing is, you could replace the platters in those.  You open the
drive, replace platter, reassemble drive, turn on fan which had a hefty
filter on the intake.  Once it ran long enough to have clean air inside,
spin up the drive and go back to work. 

I even remember when 512KBs of ram was a big deal.  I also remember
having expansion cards that would add a few MBs of ram.  Jeez I'm
getting old.  o_O  We talk about TBs like they are nothing.  My first
puter was a old Vic-20.  4Kbs of ram it had.  I played music on that
thing and freaked my Dad out.  ROFL

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Wol]

On 09/12/2022 00:45, Dale wrote:
> Peter Humphrey wrote:
>> On Friday, 9 December 2022 00:03:29 GMT Dale wrote:
>>
>>> I think back sometimes, I started out with a 30GB hard drive waaaay back
>>> in 2003.  I thought I had problems then.
>> Then you won't want to know that I paid extra in 1990 for an 85MB drive in my
>> first PC. No, not GB: MB.
>>
> 
> I worked at a puter place in the late 80's.  They had old hard drives
> that were only a few MBs and had 14" platters.  Yes, 14" platters.
> Funny thing is, you could replace the platters in those.  You open the
> drive, replace platter, reassemble drive, turn on fan which had a hefty
> filter on the intake.  Once it ran long enough to have clean air inside,
> spin up the drive and go back to work.
> 
> I even remember when 512KBs of ram was a big deal.  I also remember
> having expansion cards that would add a few MBs of ram.  Jeez I'm
> getting old.  o_O  We talk about TBs like they are nothing.  My first
> puter was a old Vic-20.  4Kbs of ram it had.  I played music on that
> thing and freaked my Dad out.  ROFL
> 
I remember those things. About 16 MB per platter. I remember my work 
buying a 300MB drive (19 platters in a disk pack, the size of a washing 
machine) for our multi-user mini that served the entire company with 
256KB of ram ...

Cheers,
Wol

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Peter Humphrey]

On Friday, 9 December 2022 08:27:18 GMT Wol wrote:
> On 09/12/2022 00:45, Dale wrote:
> > I even remember when 512KBs of ram was a big deal.  I also remember
> > having expansion cards that would add a few MBs of ram.  Jeez I'm
> > getting old.  o_O  We talk about TBs like they are nothing.  My first
> > puter was a old Vic-20.  4Kbs of ram it had.  I played music on that
> > thing and freaked my Dad out.  ROFL
> 
> I remember those things. About 16 MB per platter. I remember my work
> buying a 300MB drive (19 platters in a disk pack, the size of a washing
> machine) for our multi-user mini that served the entire company with
> 256KB of ram ...

Latest in the willy-waving contest: in the 1970s the national grid was 
monitored and analysed with a Ferranti Argus 500 machine with 24KB RAM and a 
2MB disk. It was common for American visitors to believe that was just driving 
the control engineers' displays, and where was the main computer?

24-bit assembler code. Those were the days - some of my very best. No concept 
of a file or a file-system.

-- 
Regards,
Peter.

[OT] Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Peter Humphrey]

On Friday, 9 December 2022 10:34:00 GMT I wrote:

> in the 1970s the national grid was monitored and analysed with a Ferranti
> Argus 500 machine with 24KB RAM and a 2MB disk. It was common for
> American visitors to believe that was just driving the control engineers'
> displays, and where was the main computer?

Er... There was no RAM in those days, not of the type we know today. In fact 
it was 2-microsecond core store. Each tiny ferromagnetic toroid was threaded 
with one X wire, one Y wire and (I think it was) a sync pulse wire. A 
remarkable labour of love to build such a thing.

-- 
Regards,
Peter.

RE: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Laurence Perkins]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Humphrey <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk> 
> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2022 3:35 AM
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives
> 
> On Friday, 9 December 2022 10:34:00 GMT I wrote:
> 
> > in the 1970s the national grid was monitored and analysed with a 
> > Ferranti Argus 500 machine with 24KB RAM and a 2MB disk. It was common 
> > for American visitors to believe that was just driving the control engineers'
> > displays, and where was the main computer?
> 
> Er... There was no RAM in those days, not of the type we know today. In fact it was 2-microsecond core store. Each tiny ferromagnetic toroid was threaded with one X wire, one Y wire and (I think it was) a sync pulse wire. A remarkable labour of love to build such a thing.
> 
> --
> Regards,
> Peter.
> 
Well, it wasn't built with transistors, but it was Random Access Memory.  As opposed to Sequential Access Memory like mercury delay lines.  And it was periodic refresh, just like most modern RAM.

That 24KB though would have been literally 196,608 ferrite cores (assuming it was an 8 bit byte on that system), and they were probably hand-soldered.

Although it looks like the original Argus line used 12 bit words.  So it was probably a 6 bit byte.  Still, a lot of soldering.

Interestingly, the Argus 400 and 500 series was one of the first systems to use multilayer PCBs and the company had to develop a lot of the techniques for creating those themselves.

LMP

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Wol]

On 09/12/2022 00:03, Dale wrote:
> I think back sometimes, I started out with a 30GB hard drive waaaay back
> in 2003.  I thought I had problems then.  O_O

The first drive I bought was - iirc - a 2GB 5.1/4" Bigfoot.

For a Pentium system where the mobo took chips with a max capacity of 32MB.

That was about ten years before you ...

:-)

Wol

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Frank Steinmetzger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2772 bytes --]

Am Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 05:30:18PM -0600 schrieb Dale:

> > I use USB3 hard drives on Pis for my bulk storage because I care about
> > capacity far more than performance, and with a distributed filesystem
> > the performance is still good enough for what I'm doing.  If I needed
> > block storage for containers/VMs/whatever then use a different
> > solution, but that gets expensive fast.
> > […]
>
> From my understanding, you are right about USB3 and GB ethernet being
> the big change.  They also have more memory and faster CPUs but if you
> bottleneck the data with slow USB and ethernet with the old ones, who
> needs a fast CPU?  I think they realized that the USB and ethernet had
> to improve.  It got better from there. 
> 
> https://shop.allnetchina.cn/collections/sata-hat/products/dual-sata-hat-open-frame-for-raspberry-pi-4
> 
> I found the above.  From my understanding, it allows a SATA drive to
> connect to either 2 or 4 bays.

Looking at the pics, it looks all very wibbly-wobbly. You will either have
the parts lying around open on a desk or you need to find a case for all
that stuff which adheres to no industry standard form factor. Pi accessories
are quite hard to come by, since they’re often sold out.

> One thing I like about the Raspberry option, I can upgrade it later.  I
> can simply take out the old, put in new, upgrade done.  If I buy a
> prebuilt NAS, they pretty much are what they are if upgrading isn't a
> option.

If you just do storage, what do you need upgrades for, anyway? All it needs
to do is receive your data and write it to disk. And then return it later
when asked for. I don’t remember you mentioning running VMs or some such.
Any current commercial NAS has enough oomph for that, unless it’s a very
cheap ARM-based one. (Only the ecryption part remains to be solved with a
ready-made NAS.)

> I just wonder, could I use that board and just hook it to my USB port
> and a external power supply and skip the Raspberry Pi part?  I'd bet not
> tho.  ;-)

From a practical standpoint, what is the difference then to an HDD dock or a
simple USB-SATA-Adapter? Except that a dock is a “proper”, clean solution
with a nice case, a secure stand on your desk and no finnicky open SATA
cables that could cause disconnects during operation if you touch them the
wrong way.

I know what it’s like to ponder all kinds of options, and it’s fun. But it
seems to me, you’re looking for a solution for a problem you’re still
looking for.

-- 
Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.

Someone who works a lot makes a lot of mistakes.
Someone who makes no mistakes gets awarded.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> Am Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 05:30:18PM -0600 schrieb Dale:
>
>>> I use USB3 hard drives on Pis for my bulk storage because I care about
>>> capacity far more than performance, and with a distributed filesystem
>>> the performance is still good enough for what I'm doing.  If I needed
>>> block storage for containers/VMs/whatever then use a different
>>> solution, but that gets expensive fast.
>>> […]
>> From my understanding, you are right about USB3 and GB ethernet being
>> the big change.  They also have more memory and faster CPUs but if you
>> bottleneck the data with slow USB and ethernet with the old ones, who
>> needs a fast CPU?  I think they realized that the USB and ethernet had
>> to improve.  It got better from there. 
>>
>> https://shop.allnetchina.cn/collections/sata-hat/products/dual-sata-hat-open-frame-for-raspberry-pi-4
>>
>> I found the above.  From my understanding, it allows a SATA drive to
>> connect to either 2 or 4 bays.
> Looking at the pics, it looks all very wibbly-wobbly. You will either have
> the parts lying around open on a desk or you need to find a case for all
> that stuff which adheres to no industry standard form factor. Pi accessories
> are quite hard to come by, since they’re often sold out.

They have a case for it too.  Check this out.

https://shop.allnetchina.cn/collections/sata-hat/products/quad-sata-kit-for-raspberry-pi-4-case-only


>
>> One thing I like about the Raspberry option, I can upgrade it later.  I
>> can simply take out the old, put in new, upgrade done.  If I buy a
>> prebuilt NAS, they pretty much are what they are if upgrading isn't a
>> option.
> If you just do storage, what do you need upgrades for, anyway? All it needs
> to do is receive your data and write it to disk. And then return it later
> when asked for. I don’t remember you mentioning running VMs or some such.
> Any current commercial NAS has enough oomph for that, unless it’s a very
> cheap ARM-based one. (Only the ecryption part remains to be solved with a
> ready-made NAS.)

Well, my pool of data keeps growing.  I may need to add drives or
something.  Plus, every few years, I could upgrade the thing if I go the
Raspberry Pi route.  Keep it running fast and all that.   ;-)


>> I just wonder, could I use that board and just hook it to my USB port
>> and a external power supply and skip the Raspberry Pi part?  I'd bet not
>> tho.  ;-)
> From a practical standpoint, what is the difference then to an HDD dock or a
> simple USB-SATA-Adapter? Except that a dock is a “proper”, clean solution
> with a nice case, a secure stand on your desk and no finnicky open SATA
> cables that could cause disconnects during operation if you touch them the
> wrong way.
>
> I know what it’s like to ponder all kinds of options, and it’s fun. But it
> seems to me, you’re looking for a solution for a problem you’re still
> looking for.
>

Given the size of one of the directories I have, it takes two drives, or
soon will, and the use of LVM or something similar.  I can't do that as
it is now.  I've even wondered if I hooked two eSATA drives up and gave
both plenty of time to spin up if LVM would see them both and me be able
to use two drives as one that way.  Thing is, I don't know how LVM
reacts if the two drives become available at separate times, maybe even
many seconds or a minute or so apart. 

My problem is a growing directory.  I admit, It's not increasing as fast
as it was.  When I was on DSL, it limited my speed a lot.  With this new
fiber internet, I can download huge amounts of data in a really short
period of time.  I can download it faster than I can verify it.  I'm
still checking things I downloaded over a month ago.  I'm having fun
doing it tho.  ;-)

I thought about breaking up that huge directory.  Split it into two
parts, the 'a' through 'l' and 'm' through 'z' thing.  Then use two
drives to back it up.  Thing is, the external drive enclosures that I
really like and trust, I can't buy anymore.  They are Rosewill eSATA
drive enclosures.  It has a fan to keep things cool and a display on the
front.  They are really nice and rock solid.  All the USB type drive
enclosures I've tried caused all sorts of problems.  I bricked a couple
hard drives and eventually, the enclosures wouldn't work at all.  The
Rosewill enclosures are the most stable things I've ever seen.  I wish I
could find a few more of them, as spares if nothing else.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Wol]

On 09/12/2022 01:15, Dale wrote:
> Given the size of one of the directories I have, it takes two drives, or
> soon will, and the use of LVM or something similar.  I can't do that as
> it is now.  I've even wondered if I hooked two eSATA drives up and gave
> both plenty of time to spin up if LVM would see them both and me be able
> to use two drives as one that way.  Thing is, I don't know how LVM
> reacts if the two drives become available at separate times, maybe even
> many seconds or a minute or so apart.

If you're using LVM to link them together, it will wait until they 
become available. Okay, not quite the same, but I run raid over 
dm-integrity, and it always unnerves me when systemd fires up this job 
and it says "waiting for lvm/home". But the system just sits there while 
dm-integrity checks its drives, makes them available, raid spots and 
loads them, and then the raid is there, lvm spots it, makes lvm/home 
available, and the system is up and running ...
> 
> My problem is a growing directory.  I admit, It's not increasing as fast
> as it was.  When I was on DSL, it limited my speed a lot.  With this new
> fiber internet, I can download huge amounts of data in a really short
> period of time.  I can download it faster than I can verify it.  I'm
> still checking things I downloaded over a month ago.  I'm having fun
> doing it tho.  😉
> 
> I thought about breaking up that huge directory.  Split it into two
> parts, the 'a' through 'l' and 'm' through 'z' thing.  Then use two
> drives to back it up. 

I think you're going to have to ...

> Thing is, the external drive enclosures that I
> really like and trust, I can't buy anymore.  They are Rosewill eSATA
> drive enclosures.  It has a fan to keep things cool and a display on the
> front.  They are really nice and rock solid.  All the USB type drive
> enclosures I've tried caused all sorts of problems.  I bricked a couple
> hard drives and eventually, the enclosures wouldn't work at all.  The
> Rosewill enclosures are the most stable things I've ever seen.  I wish I
> could find a few more of them, as spares if nothing else.

Yup, that's my experience of USB, too. It just isn't reliable. And 
anything that works and you like, they discontinue!

Cheers,
Wol

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

Wol wrote:
> On 09/12/2022 01:15, Dale wrote:
>> Given the size of one of the directories I have, it takes two drives, or
>> soon will, and the use of LVM or something similar.  I can't do that as
>> it is now.  I've even wondered if I hooked two eSATA drives up and gave
>> both plenty of time to spin up if LVM would see them both and me be able
>> to use two drives as one that way.  Thing is, I don't know how LVM
>> reacts if the two drives become available at separate times, maybe even
>> many seconds or a minute or so apart.
>
> If you're using LVM to link them together, it will wait until they
> become available. Okay, not quite the same, but I run raid over
> dm-integrity, and it always unnerves me when systemd fires up this job
> and it says "waiting for lvm/home". But the system just sits there
> while dm-integrity checks its drives, makes them available, raid spots
> and loads them, and then the raid is there, lvm spots it, makes
> lvm/home available, and the system is up and running ...

Really?  Oh that just may start something.  I could easily setup two
drives and use LVM on them.  I just didn't know that it would work.  One
added benefit, they are encrypted with cryptsetup which puts everything
on top of LVM.  So, the data isn't available until I type in the
password and then mount it.  It doesn't try to mount automatically or
anything because of that.  Oh, this could be the start of something. 

>
> Cheers,
> Wol
>
>

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[William Kenworthy]

* didn't send to the list the first time :(


On 9/12/22 07:30, Dale wrote:
>
>
> I just wonder, could I use that board and just hook it to my USB port
> and a external power supply and skip the Raspberry Pi part?  I'd bet not
> tho.  ;-)
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)
>
>
>

Check this one: https://www.hardkernel.com/shop/odroid-hc4-p-kit/

I have quite few hardkernel devices (inc 5x HC2 using moosefs) and they 
are quite good.  I run gentoo, but the included OS is ok. Only gotchais 
using an SD card for the OS (less reliable) but getting the optional 
eMMC sidesteps that one.

BillK

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Frank Steinmetzger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9514 bytes --]

Am Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 06:37:52AM -0600 schrieb Dale:
> Howdy,
>
> I've pretty much reached a limit on my backups.  I'm up to a 16TB hard
> drive for one and even that won't last long.  Larger drives are much
> more costly.  A must have NAS is quickly approaching.

Hear hear, ye olde story. ;-)

> Path one, buy a NAS, possibly used, that has no drives.  If possible, I
> may even replace the OS that comes on it or upgrade if I can.

Difficult in consumer-grade stuff, but there are ways, like for Synology:
NetBSD on old Synology hardware:
https://wiki.netbsd.org/ports/sandpoint/instsynology/
And another alternative OS for Synology: https://xpenology.com/forum/

However, even though Synology’s current trend of development is a little
concerning with vendor lock-in and hardware restrictions in their newest
devices, why not use the built-in software? It still is very good and easy
to use and offers all you need like HTTP/HTTPS, FTP, CIFS, SSH, Dav etc. It
uses btrfs or ext4 internally.

Disclaimer: I have no first-hand experience with any of those devices, my
knowledge comes from news about new devices and stuff that I read in a PC
tech forum. Qnap’s software quality does not compete with Synology, and they
also have a worse security track record. So don’t hook it up to the Internet
directly.

> I'm not looking for fancy, or even RAID.  Just looking for a two bay NAS
> that will work.

Why just two? Sooner or later, it will become cramped again. Go for four
bays and leave them empty for the time being.

> First, what is a DAS?  Is that totally different than a NAS?  From what
> I've found, a DAS is not what I'm looking for since I want a ethernet
> connection and the ability to control things over the network.

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-attached_storage, you are
right: no ethernet, but direct connection to the host. A beefed-up external
drive enclosure, if you will (from the little understanding I got from the
article).

> It seems DAS lacks that feature but not real sure.  I'm not sure I can
> upgrade the software/OS on a DAS either. 

There is no software, it is just a drive bay and the host that you hook it
up to does all the logic work.

> Next thing.  Let's say a NAS comes with two 4TB drives for a total of
> 8TB of capacity from the factory, using LVM or similar software I
> assume.

AFAIK, consumer NASes don’t use LVM. Probably only standard Raid-1/5/6/10,
JBOD or single disk access.

> Is that limited to that capacity or can I for example replace one or both
> drives with for example 14TB drives for a total of 28TBs of capacity?

Sure, why not? But then I’d buy one without any drives from the start and
install the drives later myself. I wouldn’t know what to do with those small
drives if I replaced them with something larger right away.

> If one does that, let's say it uses LVM, can I somehow move data as well
> or is that beyond the abilities of a NAS?

What do you mean by move? AFAIK, Synology offers SSH access, but I have no
idea what you can do with it in terms of plumbing. And why would you? It is
supposed to do everything under the hood. But as I said, I don’t expect any
of those to use LVM in the first place.

> Could it be done inside my computer for example?

With a DAS, you could. ;-) But if push comes to shove, pull out the drives
and hook them up to your “puter”.


> Path two, I've researched building a NAS using a Raspberry Pi 4 8GB as
> another option.  They come as parts, cases too, but the newer and faster
> models of Raspberry Pi 4 with more ram seem to work pretty well.

Just today, in a forum thread about a new Synology with underwhelming
hardware features, people were posting alternatives. One of them was
https://kubesail.com/homepage. Currently it’s only a small case with
2×2.5″. But they also announced a soon-to-come 5×3.5″.

> The old slower models with small amounts of ram don't fair as well.  While
> I want a descent speed, I'm not looking for or expecting it to be
> blazingly fast.

Only the very old devices with puny ARM chips were so slow they couldn’t
saturate Gbit ethernet—with and without encryption. Synologies of recent
years with a Celeron J4000 will have no problem. Current models with AMD
Ryzen R1600 won’t either, but draw much more power in idle and have no
graphics unit. OTOH, they gain ECC memory support.

> I just wonder, if from a upgrade and expansion point of view, if building
> a NAS would be better.

Regardless of whether DIY or OOTB, a NAS is much more practical than a
collection of external single enclosures. Given the rate of your growth and
need of space, I do recommend some kind of RAID for resilience against hard
disk failure. Does LVM offer this at all? TrueNAS runs from a USB stick and
uses ZFS under the hood.

> I've also noticed, it seems all Raspberry things come with a display port.

My Pi 3B has HDMI – and HDMI only.

> That means I could hook up a monitor and mouse/keyboard when needed.  That
> could be a bonus.  Heck, I may can even put some sort of Gentoo on that
> thing.  :-D

You could, but this is either a sink-hole for time, or you need to get up to
speed with cross-compiling and binhosts. I went with the standard Debian and
evaluate Arch from time to time. But I do run Gentoo on my DIY NAS with an
i3-2000. Gentoo has ZFS in portage without overlays, which–for me–is one of
its biggest appeals.

> One reason I'm wanting to go this route, I'm trying to keep it small and
> able to fit inside my fire safe.

How small is small? Given your needs, two bays seem very constrained. And if
four bays don’t fit, consider a dedicated safe – if it is worth the expense.

> I plan to buy a media type safe that is larger but right now, it needs to
> fit inside my current safe.

OK. But then it is pointless IMHO to buy a two-bay device now and a four-bay
later. You spend more money, you need to migrate and it is not ecological.

> One thing I'd like to have no matter what path I go down, the ability to
> encrypt the data.  My current backup drives are encrypted and I'd like
> to keep it that way.  If that is possible to do.

Not sure about that with Synology (it’s probably a small Internet search
away). ZFS has encryption built-in these days. Btrfs does not, it is only
planned, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Btrfs. You could use an
encryption layer on your host, so the NAS only receives encrypted data, but
that sounds cumbersome.

> I suspect the Raspberry option would since I'd control the OS/software
> placed on it.  I could be wrong tho. 

Your OS, your features. ;-) I also encrypt my NAS. My main “threat” scenario
is having to send in a drive. That’s why I did not set up any barrier for
decryption: the keyfile just sits on the root partition on the system SSD. I
was thinking about having the keyfile on a remote device like my pi, though.

> One last thing.  Are there any NAS type boxes that I should absolutely
> avoid if I go that route?

As I mentioned, QNAP struggles a little with security. But as long as you
don’t hook it up to the Internet, that shouldn’t be a problem. On the plus
side, they are a little cheaper. But I don’t have any concrete advice to
that question.

> I think the DAS thing may be one for me to avoid but I'm not for sure what
> limits it has.

Well, it has no network, because it has no computer inside. Advantages: one
less system to maintain. Disadvantage: no distributed access, you basically
put the share features onto the host to which you attach the DAS. This also
includes any file system magic like your beloved LVM.

> Thoughts?  Info to share?  Ideas on a best path forward?  Buy already
> built or build?

Well, I gave you a piece of my mind. I like tinkering with storage. I am
also still deliberating how to increase my storage. I am at 80 % of my NAS,
which runs 4×6 TB in a RaidZ2 (meaning 2 of the 4 disks—50 % of gross
capacity—is for redundancy). I could:

- Reduce use of space by re-encoding my 3 TB of DVD copys. I wanted to do
  that anyways and it could recover more than 2 TB.
- Install bigger drives. Maybe start out with 2×14 TB and migrate
  everything. This will lower power consumption, but leaves me with four
  6-year-old, but still perfectly working NAS drives.
- go to RaidZ1, losing redundancy but gaining 50 % space.
- Buy a case with more slots and buy more disks, like the new Jonsbo N1
  (which I also found in the thread I mentioned above) with five slots:
  https://www.jonsbo.com/en/products/N1.html
  Or the Fractal Node 304 with six bays:
  https://www.fractal-design.com/products/cases/node/node-304/black/
  But both cases require me to buy a new PSU. My current case
  (https://www.inter-tech.de/productdetails/SC-4100_EN.html) uses a tiny TFX
  one, and that one was very expensive (Gold rated).

  My board has “only” six SATA ports. I want to avoid installing a PCIe
  card, because that will increase power draw. But since it is a server
  board, it has an on-board USB type A, which would allow me to go to
  TrueNAS and use all six SATAs for disks.

-- 
Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.

There are things of which I do not even talk to myself.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 8:59 AM Frank Steinmetzger <Warp_7@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> You could, but this is either a sink-hole for time, or you need to get up to
> speed with cross-compiling and binhosts. I went with the standard Debian and
> evaluate Arch from time to time. But I do run Gentoo on my DIY NAS with an
> i3-2000. Gentoo has ZFS in portage without overlays, which–for me–is one of
> its biggest appeals.

++

Obviously I'm a huge Gentoo fan, but on an ARM SBC unless you're
either experimenting or you actually intend to be patching or
reconfiguring packages the precompiled option is the way to go.  When
I'm using less-popular SBCs (ie not Pis) then I will usually look for
whatever distros are supporting it in the most first-class way, again,
unless I'm experimenting.  Then I look for what has the software I
need already packaged (again, check the arch because a binary package
repo doesn't necessarily include your device, especially if it is 3rd
party).  I've had to compile things on ARM SBCs and it is SLOOOOOW.

I have the same philosophy with containers.  If I'm just running a
service, and not tweaking things, I'll just pick the least-fuss base
for my container whatever that is.

-- 
Rich

RE: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Laurence Perkins]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> 
> Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2022 6:12 AM
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives
> 
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 8:59 AM Frank Steinmetzger <Warp_7@gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> > You could, but this is either a sink-hole for time, or you need to get 
> > up to speed with cross-compiling and binhosts. I went with the 
> > standard Debian and evaluate Arch from time to time. But I do run 
> > Gentoo on my DIY NAS with an i3-2000. Gentoo has ZFS in portage 
> > without overlays, which–for me–is one of its biggest appeals.
> 
> ++
> 
> Obviously I'm a huge Gentoo fan, but on an ARM SBC unless you're either experimenting or you actually intend to be patching or reconfiguring packages the precompiled option is the way to go.  When I'm using less-popular SBCs (ie not Pis) then I will usually look for whatever distros are supporting it in the most first-class way, again, unless I'm experimenting.  Then I look for what has the software I need already packaged (again, check the arch because a binary package repo doesn't necessarily include your device, especially if it is 3rd party).  I've had to compile things on ARM SBCs and it is SLOOOOOW.
> 
> I have the same philosophy with containers.  If I'm just running a service, and not tweaking things, I'll just pick the least-fuss base for my container whatever that is.
> 
> --
> Rich
> 
> 

Pine64 has an interesting array of SBCs which are both cheaper and (some are) possibly better suited to becoming a NAS than a Pi.  One of them even has a PCIe socket I think.

Compiling Gentoo on an SBC is usually a long, slow process, but if you don't mind setting up a cross-compile environment on a more powerful system and using some combination of distcc and/or binpackages then it's not too horrible.

LMP

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 11:56 AM Laurence Perkins <lperkins@openeye.net> wrote:
>
> Pine64 has an interesting array of SBCs which are both cheaper and (some are) possibly better suited to becoming a NAS than a Pi.  One of them even has a PCIe socket I think.
>

I have the RockPro64 and I'll go ahead and warn you that you'll need
to patch the kernel if you want to use many PCIe cards.  I just tested
out a debian image on it and the several year old patch still hasn't
made its way into there.

The SATA expansion card Pine64 was selling at the time did work out of the box.

https://github.com/rockchip-linux/kernel/issues/116

--
Rich




--
Rich

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

Dale wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> <<<SNIP>>>
>
> Path two, I've researched building a NAS using a Raspberry Pi 4 8GB as
> another option.  They come as parts, cases too, but the newer and faster
> models of Raspberry Pi 4 with more ram seem to work pretty well.  The
> old slower models with small amounts of ram don't fair as well.  While I
> want a descent speed, I'm not looking for or expecting it to be
> blazingly fast.  I just wonder, if from a upgrade and expansion point of
> view, if building a NAS would be better.  I've also noticed, it seems
> all Raspberry things come with a display port.  That means I could hook
> up a monitor and mouse/keyboard when needed.  That could be a bonus. 
> Heck, I may can even put some sort of Gentoo on that thing.  :-D
>
> <<<SNIP>>>
>
> Thoughts?  Info to share?  Ideas on a best path forward?  Buy already
> built or build?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-) 
>


For those interested, I'm pretty sure this video is about this thing. 
It was new and not released to the general public at the time so it does
mention some bugs and missing drivers.  I suspect those are fixed or
included by now.  Also, the case I saw appears to be newer and not
something that requires all the assembly shown in the video. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahrdx3TYxZc

That same channel has another video that was a pretty insane build cost
wise.  It had huge SSD drives.  Bonus video for anyone bored to tears. lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_px298IF2k

This is the case I'm looking at.  Pretty sure the card, CPU board and
drives goes into this.  Plus I think they added a display too. 

https://shop.allnetchina.cn/collections/sata-hat/products/quad-sata-kit-for-raspberry-pi-4-case-only

As I mentioned earlier, I plan to research that seller more.  I want to
make sure they stand behind their sales.  Most likely do but I don't
know that.  ;-)

It seems that people are working on making a really nice Raspberry Pi
device for use as a NAS.  It may not be perfect but even what is in the
1st video would likely work fine for me.  Storage wise.  I like the case
I linked to better tho. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

Dale wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> I've pretty much reached a limit on my backups.  I'm up to a 16TB hard
> drive for one and even that won't last long.  Larger drives are much
> more costly.  A must have NAS is quickly approaching.  I've been
> searching around and find some things confusing.  I'm hoping someone can
> clear up that confusion.  I'm also debating what path to travel down. 
> I'd also like to keep costs down as well.  That said, I don't mind
> paying a little more for one that would offer a much better option. 
>
> Path one, buy a NAS, possibly used, that has no drives.  If possible, I
> may even replace the OS that comes on it or upgrade if I can.  I'm not
> looking for fancy, or even RAID.  Just looking for a two bay NAS that
> will work.  First, what is a DAS?  Is that totally different than a
> NAS?  From what I've found, a DAS is not what I'm looking for since I
> want a ethernet connection and the ability to control things over the
> network.  It seems DAS lacks that feature but not real sure.  I'm not
> sure I can upgrade the software/OS on a DAS either. 
>
> Next thing.  Let's say a NAS comes with two 4TB drives for a total of
> 8TB of capacity from the factory, using LVM or similar software I
> assume.  Is that limited to that capacity or can I for example replace
> one or both drives with for example 14TB drives for a total of 28TBs of
> capacity?  If one does that, let's say it uses LVM, can I somehow move
> data as well or is that beyond the abilities of a NAS?  Could it be done
> inside my computer for example?  Does this vary by brand or even model? 
>
> Path two, I've researched building a NAS using a Raspberry Pi 4 8GB as
> another option.  They come as parts, cases too, but the newer and faster
> models of Raspberry Pi 4 with more ram seem to work pretty well.  The
> old slower models with small amounts of ram don't fair as well.  While I
> want a descent speed, I'm not looking for or expecting it to be
> blazingly fast.  I just wonder, if from a upgrade and expansion point of
> view, if building a NAS would be better.  I've also noticed, it seems
> all Raspberry things come with a display port.  That means I could hook
> up a monitor and mouse/keyboard when needed.  That could be a bonus. 
> Heck, I may can even put some sort of Gentoo on that thing.  :-D
>
> One reason I'm wanting to go this route, I'm trying to keep it small and
> able to fit inside my fire safe.  I plan to buy a media type safe that
> is larger but right now, it needs to fit inside my current safe.  Most
> of the 2 bay NAS or a Raspberry Pi based NAS are fairly small.  They not
> much bigger than the three external hard drives and a couple bare drives
> that currently occupy my safe. 
>
> One thing I'd like to have no matter what path I go down, the ability to
> encrypt the data.  My current backup drives are encrypted and I'd like
> to keep it that way.  If that is possible to do.  I suspect the
> Raspberry option would since I'd control the OS/software placed on it. 
> I could be wrong tho. 
>
> One last thing.  Are there any NAS type boxes that I should absolutely
> avoid if I go that route?  Maybe it is a model that has serious
> limitations or has other problems.  I think the DAS thing may be one for
> me to avoid but I'm not for sure what limits it has.  Google didn't help
> a lot. It also could be as simple as, avoid any model that says this in
> the description or uses some type of software that is bad or limits
> options. 
>
> Thoughts?  Info to share?  Ideas on a best path forward?  Buy already
> built or build?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-) 
>

It does appear that several people are making it so NAS boxes can be
easily built by us nerdy types and not be huge.  Things are a bit
interesting right now for hardware and such.  Some parts are expensive,
hard to find or just plain unavailable.  Still, I suspect that this will
get better later on.  The good thing, people are working on this. There
is interest in having a option. 

I may in the meantime have to split up my large directory and the
resulting backup.  Split it in half or something.  I just bought a 16TB
hard drive.  It's over 90% full already.  That said, my downloading is
slowing down quite a lot.  It will last a while.  I may setup a old
system as a NAS and just keep it in a outbuilding for the time being. 
Should offer me some protection at least.

If anyone runs up on some info that might relate to this, please share. 
Maybe something new will come out that we don't know about now. If I do
build something, I'll likely post and share what I used, how much effort
was involved and the end results. Maybe this will help others as well.

Thanks.

Dale

:-)  :-)

P. S.  I currently have a spare 14TB, 8TB and 6TB hard drive not in
use.  That's 28TBs available.  That's a good start on a NAS as far as
drives go.  Currently in use in external enclosures for backups, 16Tb,
8TB and a 6TB hard drive. 

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Mark Knecht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 959 bytes --]

On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 1:42 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
> It does appear that several people are making it so NAS boxes can be
> easily built by us nerdy types and not be huge.  Things are a bit
> interesting right now for hardware and such.  Some parts are expensive,
> hard to find or just plain unavailable.  Still, I suspect that this will
> get better later on.  The good thing, people are working on this. There
> is interest in having a option.
>

I know I've said this before but yes, people are working on it and it
is buildable by people like us.

https://www.truenas.com/truenas-core/

Any old x64 PC and a few disks will get you up and running. It's
open source as much as BSD is open source. It's not Linux
so there was a little learning to do but it wasn't bad.

Mine has a small SSD as the boot drive and then RAID1 pairs
running OpenZFS for storage. It's inexpensive if you have an
old computer to build on.

Good luck,
Mark

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1346 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1804 bytes --]

Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 1:42 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com
> <mailto:rdalek1967@gmail.com>> wrote:
> <SNIP>
> > It does appear that several people are making it so NAS boxes can be
> > easily built by us nerdy types and not be huge.  Things are a bit
> > interesting right now for hardware and such.  Some parts are expensive,
> > hard to find or just plain unavailable.  Still, I suspect that this will
> > get better later on.  The good thing, people are working on this. There
> > is interest in having a option.
> >
>
> I know I've said this before but yes, people are working on it and it
> is buildable by people like us.
>
> https://www.truenas.com/truenas-core/
>
> Any old x64 PC and a few disks will get you up and running. It's 
> open source as much as BSD is open source. It's not Linux
> so there was a little learning to do but it wasn't bad.
>
> Mine has a small SSD as the boot drive and then RAID1 pairs
> running OpenZFS for storage. It's inexpensive if you have an 
> old computer to build on.
>
> Good luck,
> Mark

I got a old rig I can use.  I actually burned OpenNAS, TrueNAS or
FreeNAS on a USB stick.  I can't recall which one I put on it tho.  I
downloaded all three.  lol  If you know that one is better than the
others, feel free to share.  Also, I'd like to keep using LVM if I can. 
If nothing else, I already got the data on the drives and won't have to
reformat and copy again.  It took almost 100 hours to copy to the new
16TB drive.  Using LVM would make that easier, and faster.

I'll have to work with what I got for now but I really like the
Raspberry option for its size and good options to upgrade later.  I'll
just make do with something else until that option is doable.  Maybe it
won't be to long. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3106 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Mark Knecht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 894 bytes --]

<SNIP>
>
> I got a old rig I can use.  I actually burned OpenNAS, TrueNAS or FreeNAS
on a USB stick.  I can't recall which one I put on it tho.  I downloaded
all three.  lol  If you know that one is better than the others, feel free
to share.  Also, I'd like to keep using LVM if I can.  If nothing else, I
already got the data on the drives and won't have to reformat and copy
again.  It took almost 100 hours to copy to the new 16TB drive.  Using LVM
would make that easier, and faster.
>
> I'll have to work with what I got for now but I really like the Raspberry
option for its size and good options to upgrade later.  I'll just make do
with something else until that option is doable.  Maybe it won't be to
long.
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)

TrueNAS Core. It's the free one. Works great. Very stable, but it is BSD,
not Linux so you'll be frustrated sometimes. None the less it works very
well.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1041 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

Mark Knecht wrote:
> <SNIP>
> >
> > I got a old rig I can use.  I actually burned OpenNAS, TrueNAS or
> FreeNAS on a USB stick.  I can't recall which one I put on it tho.  I
> downloaded all three.  lol  If you know that one is better than the
> others, feel free to share.  Also, I'd like to keep using LVM if I
> can.  If nothing else, I already got the data on the drives and won't
> have to reformat and copy again.  It took almost 100 hours to copy to
> the new 16TB drive.  Using LVM would make that easier, and faster.
> >
> > I'll have to work with what I got for now but I really like the
> Raspberry option for its size and good options to upgrade later.  I'll
> just make do with something else until that option is doable.  Maybe
> it won't be to long.
> >
> > Dale
> >
> > :-)  :-)
>
> TrueNAS Core. It's the free one. Works great. Very stable, but it is
> BSD, not Linux so you'll be frustrated sometimes. None the less it
> works very well.


Well, I booted it and it is FreeNAS.  I got it on a USB stick tho. 
Well, I put the installer on one stick and then installed on a second
stick.  Kinda odd but I get it.  I also noticed it is BSD based.  I
played with BSD once before.  One thing I can say, it's secure.  Big time.

I see it uses ZFS or something.  No mention of LVM.  I figured that.  Oh
well. 

If I can't hammer FreeNAS into shape, I'll try TrueNAS next.  If it
works, that's fine too.  ;-) 

Thanks.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

P. S.  When I first booted, I didn't have the ethernet plugged in.  It
wasn't happy about that.  Given it is NAS software, I should have known
better.  ROFL 

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Mark Knecht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2518 bytes --]

On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 9:35 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Mark Knecht wrote:
> > <SNIP>
> > >
> > > I got a old rig I can use.  I actually burned OpenNAS, TrueNAS or
> > FreeNAS on a USB stick.  I can't recall which one I put on it tho.  I
> > downloaded all three.  lol  If you know that one is better than the
> > others, feel free to share.  Also, I'd like to keep using LVM if I
> > can.  If nothing else, I already got the data on the drives and won't
> > have to reformat and copy again.  It took almost 100 hours to copy to
> > the new 16TB drive.  Using LVM would make that easier, and faster.
> > >
> > > I'll have to work with what I got for now but I really like the
> > Raspberry option for its size and good options to upgrade later.  I'll
> > just make do with something else until that option is doable.  Maybe
> > it won't be to long.
> > >
> > > Dale
> > >
> > > :-)  :-)
> >
> > TrueNAS Core. It's the free one. Works great. Very stable, but it is
> > BSD, not Linux so you'll be frustrated sometimes. None the less it
> > works very well.
>
>
> Well, I booted it and it is FreeNAS.  I got it on a USB stick tho.
> Well, I put the installer on one stick and then installed on a second
> stick.  Kinda odd but I get it.  I also noticed it is BSD based.  I
> played with BSD once before.  One thing I can say, it's secure.  Big time.
>

I'm not clear exactly but FreeNAS _BECAME_ TrueNAS Core and TrueNAS
(all 3 versions) are the ones being worked on.

Installing from USB is pretty standard. Installing to a USB flash drive
is not unheard of in home NAS servers but be careful of machine
placement because people talk about USB sockets being unreliable
long term. I'm sure you'll figure it out, but make sure you're using
TrueNAS Core.

> I see it uses ZFS or something.  No mention of LVM.  I figured that.  Oh
> well.

I see LVM as something that belongs on your machine, not your NAS
device. Your LVM volumes will just be directories on the NAS. You will
make your pools as large as you can afford and the NAS will just store
your data. You don't really need to worry about that much. My NAS
stores backups from 3 different machine, but all the backup data
is in a single ZFS RAID1 pool located in directories which macth the
name of the machine that wrote them.

>
> If I can't hammer FreeNAS into shape, I'll try TrueNAS next.  If it
> works, that's fine too.  ;-)

My input for the third time. Move to TrueNAS Core. That's the one
that is being developed and getting support.

Mark

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3263 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3223 bytes --]

Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 9:35 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com
> <mailto:rdalek1967@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Mark Knecht wrote:
> > > <SNIP>
> > > >
> > > > I got a old rig I can use.  I actually burned OpenNAS, TrueNAS or
> > > FreeNAS on a USB stick.  I can't recall which one I put on it tho.  I
> > > downloaded all three.  lol  If you know that one is better than the
> > > others, feel free to share.  Also, I'd like to keep using LVM if I
> > > can.  If nothing else, I already got the data on the drives and won't
> > > have to reformat and copy again.  It took almost 100 hours to copy to
> > > the new 16TB drive.  Using LVM would make that easier, and faster.
> > > >
> > > > I'll have to work with what I got for now but I really like the
> > > Raspberry option for its size and good options to upgrade later.  I'll
> > > just make do with something else until that option is doable.  Maybe
> > > it won't be to long.
> > > >
> > > > Dale
> > > >
> > > > :-)  :-)
> > >
> > > TrueNAS Core. It's the free one. Works great. Very stable, but it is
> > > BSD, not Linux so you'll be frustrated sometimes. None the less it
> > > works very well.
> >
> >
> > Well, I booted it and it is FreeNAS.  I got it on a USB stick tho.
> > Well, I put the installer on one stick and then installed on a second
> > stick.  Kinda odd but I get it.  I also noticed it is BSD based.  I
> > played with BSD once before.  One thing I can say, it's secure.  Big
> time.
> >
>
> I'm not clear exactly but FreeNAS _BECAME_ TrueNAS Core and TrueNAS
> (all 3 versions) are the ones being worked on.
>
> Installing from USB is pretty standard. Installing to a USB flash drive
> is not unheard of in home NAS servers but be careful of machine
> placement because people talk about USB sockets being unreliable
> long term. I'm sure you'll figure it out, but make sure you're using
> TrueNAS Core. 
>
> > I see it uses ZFS or something.  No mention of LVM.  I figured that.  Oh
> > well.
>
> I see LVM as something that belongs on your machine, not your NAS
> device. Your LVM volumes will just be directories on the NAS. You will
> make your pools as large as you can afford and the NAS will just store
> your data. You don't really need to worry about that much. My NAS
> stores backups from 3 different machine, but all the backup data
> is in a single ZFS RAID1 pool located in directories which macth the 
> name of the machine that wrote them.
>  
> >
> > If I can't hammer FreeNAS into shape, I'll try TrueNAS next.  If it
> > works, that's fine too.  ;-)
>
> My input for the third time. Move to TrueNAS Core. That's the one
> that is being developed and getting support.
>  
> Mark


I think I'm going to switch.  I need to start over anyway.  I set up a
user account and a large pool but while I can mount it, I can't put
anything in it yet.  I get a permission error.  I likely missed a step
or something.  Starting over will help correct that.  lol 

By the way, when I got it installed, it did update to a newer version. 
I didn't look to see if it was dated in any way but updates seem to be
available for FreeNAS.  I dunno. 

Thanks for the info.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5229 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Mark Knecht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2806 bytes --]

On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 8:01 AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
> I think I'm going to switch.  I need to start over anyway.  I set up a
user account and a large pool but while I can mount it, I can't put
anything in it yet.  I get a permission error.  I likely missed a step or
something.  Starting over will help correct that.  lol
>
> By the way, when I got it installed, it did update to a newer version.  I
didn't look to see if it was dated in any way but updates seem to be
available for FreeNAS.  I dunno.
>
> Thanks for the info.
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)

At this point I think you're wise to just plug around in it for a little
while. Learn it a little bit. Build a few pools and get used to how it
works. It's a bit different than Linux.

In my case everything is NFS mounts and NFS exports work differently on
BSD. Assume you have a pool:

/mnt/MyPool/mark/Backups

and under that you want to have 3 directories exported to different
machines for backups, so

/mnt/MyPool/mark/Backups/science
/mnt/MyPool/mark/Backups/sciene2
/mnt/MyPool/mark/Backups/StellarMate

where each user machine has a place to put things, and hence you can find
it, but no LVM, it's just a big pool of storage. Note there are all the
standard problems about permissions when you first set these directories
up, like making sure you own them, that they are writable, etc.

In Linux NFS I would likely export all three separately, while in TrueNAS
BSD I export

/mnt/MyPool/mark --alldirs

If you cared about science mucking with science2's backups there are ways
to stop that, but I don't care because each machine on my network has a
bash scripts that points it where I want it to go:

mark@science2:~$ cat ./bin/DoTrueNAS
#rsync -avx -n --port=873
--exclude={000_NOT_BACKED_UP,RIPS,.cache,.nv,'google-chrome*',DiskImages,Current}
/home/mark mark@truenas1:/mnt/MyPool/mark/Backups/science2/.

rsync -avx --port=873
--exclude={000_NOT_BACKED_UP,RIPS,.cache,.nv,'google-chrome*',DiskImages,Current}
/home/mark mark@truenas1:/mnt/MyPool/mark/Backups/science2/.
mark@science2:~$

where the first one is a test config and the second is a real transfer.
Because it's rsync if something doesn't finish then I can pick up again
with little time lost.

Also, I think there are ways for you to build complex pools like a RAID0
from your 6TB and 8TB drives, and then a RAID1 using the RAID0 and your
14TB drive but I've never tried it because mine don't have enough drive
slots for that.

Also, turn on compression. It saves me between 15-20% so 14TB becomes 16TB
storage. YMMV. Video files don't compress, at least not much. Data files
generally do.

Hope this helps. I think you'll find TrueNAS fun actually but there is a
learning curve. I've used it for about a year and barely scratched the
surface.

Good luck,
Mark

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3415 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Frank Steinmetzger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3231 bytes --]

Am Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 08:44:42AM -0700 schrieb Mark Knecht:

> Also, I think there are ways for you to build complex pools like a RAID0
> from your 6TB and 8TB drives, and then a RAID1 using the RAID0 and your
> 14TB drive but I've never tried it because mine don't have enough drive
> slots for that.

After a longer fruitless search on the interwebs (I ddidn’t want to start up
my NAS just to check this) I finally found the right search keywords and
found a reddit thread about that. And it even throws LVM into the
discussion. ^^
https://www.reddit.com/r/zfs/comments/fitc73/raidz_with_nested_vdevs/

Also <https://zfs-discuss.zfsonlinux.narkive.com/g2THW8n4/nested-vdevs>:
“Here's a definitive answer from the man page for zpool.

Virtual devices cannot be nested, so a mirror or raidz virtual device can
only contain files or disks. Mirrors of mirrors (or other combinations) are
not allowed.”


I would advise against a JBOD pool anyways. Because if one drive dies, the
whole JBOD is gone. That goes for ZFS and probably for LVM, too (though I am
not sure how writes are distributed across JBOD disks). If the goal is
redundancy, you could buy a second drive to match the size of an existing
one and build a mirror. If redundancy is not a goal, then use the drives
separately like you do now. If one fails, then only its content is gone (or
even just the files sitting on the broken sector).

> Also, turn on compression. It saves me between 15-20% so 14TB becomes 16TB
> storage. YMMV. Video files don't compress, at least not much. Data files
> generally do.

It doesn’t hurt to switch it on, especially with lzo. But with video, the
benefit will be negligible. When storing a block of data (a “record” in ZFS
speak), it is passed through the compressor and only if the compression gain
is above a given threshold (10 % methinks), the block is written to disk
with compression.

What is more relevant in filesystems for big files (i.e. videos): set the
record size to 1 MB. The default is 64 kB, IIRC. Each record requires one
block of metadata (which includes the record checksum). So bigger records →
fewer meta blocks → better storage efficiency.

If you use big records for small files, then efficiency goes down a little.
It’s a similar (but a little more complicated) principle as when you write a
100 byte text file to a file system that uses 4 kB clusters. That file will
still use up 4 kB on disk.

The record size can be set per-dataset. So in your pool you could create a
dataset with a smaller record size for office documents, images and music,
and another dataset just for videos.

> Hope this helps. I think you'll find TrueNAS fun actually but there is a
> learning curve. I've used it for about a year and barely scratched the
> surface.

The main reason for me why I would wanna use it as opposed to a standard
Gentoo install: the OOTB web interface to manage all sorts of accounts,
access and permissions under one nice hood.

-- 

Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.

A fermata comes to the doctor: “I can’t hold it any longer...”

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> Am Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 08:44:42AM -0700 schrieb Mark Knecht:
>
>> Also, I think there are ways for you to build complex pools like a RAID0
>> from your 6TB and 8TB drives, and then a RAID1 using the RAID0 and your
>> 14TB drive but I've never tried it because mine don't have enough drive
>> slots for that.
> After a longer fruitless search on the interwebs (I ddidn’t want to start up
> my NAS just to check this) I finally found the right search keywords and
> found a reddit thread about that. And it even throws LVM into the
> discussion. ^^
> https://www.reddit.com/r/zfs/comments/fitc73/raidz_with_nested_vdevs/
>
> Also <https://zfs-discuss.zfsonlinux.narkive.com/g2THW8n4/nested-vdevs>:
> “Here's a definitive answer from the man page for zpool.
>
> Virtual devices cannot be nested, so a mirror or raidz virtual device can
> only contain files or disks. Mirrors of mirrors (or other combinations) are
> not allowed.”
>
>
> I would advise against a JBOD pool anyways. Because if one drive dies, the
> whole JBOD is gone. That goes for ZFS and probably for LVM, too (though I am
> not sure how writes are distributed across JBOD disks). If the goal is
> redundancy, you could buy a second drive to match the size of an existing
> one and build a mirror. If redundancy is not a goal, then use the drives
> separately like you do now. If one fails, then only its content is gone (or
> even just the files sitting on the broken sector).
>
>> Also, turn on compression. It saves me between 15-20% so 14TB becomes 16TB
>> storage. YMMV. Video files don't compress, at least not much. Data files
>> generally do.
> It doesn’t hurt to switch it on, especially with lzo. But with video, the
> benefit will be negligible. When storing a block of data (a “record” in ZFS
> speak), it is passed through the compressor and only if the compression gain
> is above a given threshold (10 % methinks), the block is written to disk
> with compression.
>
> What is more relevant in filesystems for big files (i.e. videos): set the
> record size to 1 MB. The default is 64 kB, IIRC. Each record requires one
> block of metadata (which includes the record checksum). So bigger records →
> fewer meta blocks → better storage efficiency.
>
> If you use big records for small files, then efficiency goes down a little.
> It’s a similar (but a little more complicated) principle as when you write a
> 100 byte text file to a file system that uses 4 kB clusters. That file will
> still use up 4 kB on disk.
>
> The record size can be set per-dataset. So in your pool you could create a
> dataset with a smaller record size for office documents, images and music,
> and another dataset just for videos.
>
>> Hope this helps. I think you'll find TrueNAS fun actually but there is a
>> learning curve. I've used it for about a year and barely scratched the
>> surface.
> The main reason for me why I would wanna use it as opposed to a standard
> Gentoo install: the OOTB web interface to manage all sorts of accounts,
> access and permissions under one nice hood.
>


Interesting info.  Since this is a duplicate copy already, I'm not to
worried about RAID stuff.  I'd rather have two separate backups myself. 
Store them in different places for even more safety.  Still, one of
these days.  ;-) 

I'm still getting this error. 

root@fireball ~ # mkdir /mnt/Backup/Videos
mkdir: cannot create directory ‘/mnt/Backup/Videos’: Permission denied
root@fireball ~ #

I've tried every permission in every place I can find.  I have a user
set up, set permissions under storage and pools, all the little
directory thingys under it too.  It mounts so I'd think I got everything
set up correctly in the Share section.  I actually followed a guide and
I don't think I missed anything.  Still, I can't write anything to the
thing.  It mounts fine, even shows it is mounted rw.  I can't find
anything wrong on the puter or NAS ends.  This reminds me of the last
time I played with BSD.  It works so different, it just throws a person
upside down and shakes them. 

I did switch to TrueNAS tho.  Thing is, I got the same result from both,
exact same error.  Can't be a bug.  It has to be me.  No idea what I
missed but I bet I did.  lol  Just gonna keep banging on it.  :-D  I do
like the GUI part.  That's pretty neat. 

Dale

:-) :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

Dale wrote:
>
> Interesting info.  Since this is a duplicate copy already, I'm not to
> worried about RAID stuff.  I'd rather have two separate backups myself. 
> Store them in different places for even more safety.  Still, one of
> these days.  ;-) 
>
> I'm still getting this error. 
>
> root@fireball ~ # mkdir /mnt/Backup/Videos
> mkdir: cannot create directory ‘/mnt/Backup/Videos’: Permission denied
> root@fireball ~ #
>
> I've tried every permission in every place I can find.  I have a user
> set up, set permissions under storage and pools, all the little
> directory thingys under it too.  It mounts so I'd think I got everything
> set up correctly in the Share section.  I actually followed a guide and
> I don't think I missed anything.  Still, I can't write anything to the
> thing.  It mounts fine, even shows it is mounted rw.  I can't find
> anything wrong on the puter or NAS ends.  This reminds me of the last
> time I played with BSD.  It works so different, it just throws a person
> upside down and shakes them. 
>
> I did switch to TrueNAS tho.  Thing is, I got the same result from both,
> exact same error.  Can't be a bug.  It has to be me.  No idea what I
> missed but I bet I did.  lol  Just gonna keep banging on it.  :-D  I do
> like the GUI part.  That's pretty neat. 
>
> Dale
>
> :-) :-) 
>


Update.  I thought about just using Dolphin to play with the directory
that's actually on the NAS.  I could create folders and files just fine
with Dolphin.  Well, isn't that interesting.  Finally I found a comment
with google that gave me a clue.  I needed to change the options I use
with rsync plus it appears on my computer, I need to su to dale, same
user as on NAS.  Now it works.  I can rsync my files over. 

Then I noticed something else.  The network card in the NAS box, it's a
old 100MB card.  Has anyone ever poured cold molasses before?  Does
waiting on leap year sound familiar?  ROFL  Just saying. 

Hey, at least I got the silly thing to work, slowly, but works.  :/

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Mark Knecht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2994 bytes --]

On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 6:55 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dale wrote:
> >
> > Interesting info.  Since this is a duplicate copy already, I'm not to
> > worried about RAID stuff.  I'd rather have two separate backups myself.
> > Store them in different places for even more safety.  Still, one of
> > these days.  ;-)
> >
> > I'm still getting this error.
> >
> > root@fireball ~ # mkdir /mnt/Backup/Videos
> > mkdir: cannot create directory ‘/mnt/Backup/Videos’: Permission denied
> > root@fireball ~ #
> >
> > I've tried every permission in every place I can find.  I have a user
> > set up, set permissions under storage and pools, all the little
> > directory thingys under it too.  It mounts so I'd think I got everything
> > set up correctly in the Share section.  I actually followed a guide and
> > I don't think I missed anything.  Still, I can't write anything to the
> > thing.  It mounts fine, even shows it is mounted rw.  I can't find
> > anything wrong on the puter or NAS ends.  This reminds me of the last
> > time I played with BSD.  It works so different, it just throws a person
> > upside down and shakes them.
> >
> > I did switch to TrueNAS tho.  Thing is, I got the same result from both,
> > exact same error.  Can't be a bug.  It has to be me.  No idea what I
> > missed but I bet I did.  lol  Just gonna keep banging on it.  :-D  I do
> > like the GUI part.  That's pretty neat.
> >
> > Dale
> >
> > :-) :-)
> >
>
>
> Update.  I thought about just using Dolphin to play with the directory
> that's actually on the NAS.  I could create folders and files just fine
> with Dolphin.  Well, isn't that interesting.  Finally I found a comment
> with google that gave me a clue.  I needed to change the options I use
> with rsync plus it appears on my computer, I need to su to dale, same
> user as on NAS.  Now it works.  I can rsync my files over.
>
> Then I noticed something else.  The network card in the NAS box, it's a
> old 100MB card.  Has anyone ever poured cold molasses before?  Does
> waiting on leap year sound familiar?  ROFL  Just saying.
>
> Hey, at least I got the silly thing to work, slowly, but works.  :/
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)

Congrats on making progress.

Is this still FreeNAS or did you switch to TrueNAS Core?

Yeah, 100Mb/S, or say 12MB/S takes days to move
multiple Terrabytes. I did it inside of a screen session so that
I could disconnect and leave it running in the background
without having to watch cold molasses flow. I'm looking
to upgrade everything to 2.5Gb/S or higher one of these
days but once the initial backup is done regular backups
are reasonably fast.

I was disappointed in the info Frank found about not being
able to bond Pools, but it still makes me wonder if someone
could create a 14TB RAID0 outside of the pool and then bond
that RAID0 with a 14TB drive to make a 14TB ZFS RAID1.

Not looking to do it myself though... ;-)

- Mark

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3741 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4243 bytes --]

Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 6:55 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com
> <mailto:rdalek1967@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Dale wrote:
> > >
> > > Interesting info.  Since this is a duplicate copy already, I'm not to
> > > worried about RAID stuff.  I'd rather have two separate backups
> myself.
> > > Store them in different places for even more safety.  Still, one of
> > > these days.  ;-)
> > >
> > > I'm still getting this error.
> > >
> > > root@fireball ~ # mkdir /mnt/Backup/Videos
> > > mkdir: cannot create directory ‘/mnt/Backup/Videos’: Permission denied
> > > root@fireball ~ #
> > >
> > > I've tried every permission in every place I can find.  I have a user
> > > set up, set permissions under storage and pools, all the little
> > > directory thingys under it too.  It mounts so I'd think I got
> everything
> > > set up correctly in the Share section.  I actually followed a
> guide and
> > > I don't think I missed anything.  Still, I can't write anything to the
> > > thing.  It mounts fine, even shows it is mounted rw.  I can't find
> > > anything wrong on the puter or NAS ends.  This reminds me of the last
> > > time I played with BSD.  It works so different, it just throws a
> person
> > > upside down and shakes them.
> > >
> > > I did switch to TrueNAS tho.  Thing is, I got the same result from
> both,
> > > exact same error.  Can't be a bug.  It has to be me.  No idea what I
> > > missed but I bet I did.  lol  Just gonna keep banging on it.  :-D
>  I do
> > > like the GUI part.  That's pretty neat.
> > >
> > > Dale
> > >
> > > :-) :-)
> > >
> >
> >
> > Update.  I thought about just using Dolphin to play with the directory
> > that's actually on the NAS.  I could create folders and files just fine
> > with Dolphin.  Well, isn't that interesting.  Finally I found a comment
> > with google that gave me a clue.  I needed to change the options I use
> > with rsync plus it appears on my computer, I need to su to dale, same
> > user as on NAS.  Now it works.  I can rsync my files over.
> >
> > Then I noticed something else.  The network card in the NAS box, it's a
> > old 100MB card.  Has anyone ever poured cold molasses before?  Does
> > waiting on leap year sound familiar?  ROFL  Just saying.
> >
> > Hey, at least I got the silly thing to work, slowly, but works.  :/
> >
> > Dale
> >
> > :-)  :-)
>
> Congrats on making progress.
>
> Is this still FreeNAS or did you switch to TrueNAS Core?
>
> Yeah, 100Mb/S, or say 12MB/S takes days to move 
> multiple Terrabytes. I did it inside of a screen session so that
> I could disconnect and leave it running in the background
> without having to watch cold molasses flow. I'm looking
> to upgrade everything to 2.5Gb/S or higher one of these 
> days but once the initial backup is done regular backups
> are reasonably fast.
>
> I was disappointed in the info Frank found about not being
> able to bond Pools, but it still makes me wonder if someone
> could create a 14TB RAID0 outside of the pool and then bond 
> that RAID0 with a 14TB drive to make a 14TB ZFS RAID1. 
>
> Not looking to do it myself though... ;-)
>
> - Mark

Well, when I ran into the permission problem, I was going to start over
anyway.  Figured if I was going to start over, may as well switch to
TrueNAS while at it.  So, I switched.  I only used FreeNAS because it
was the first one I found.  It was put on the USB stick ages ago. I'm
keeping a eye out for a small hard drive, 250GB or something to use as
the OS drive in the NAS.  I've read it wears out USB sticks pretty fast. 

At first, I couldn't get both drives to add at the same time.  To work
around that, I set up a pool with one drive.  I then went back and added
the second drive.  Then it was both drives added together, like I do in
LVM.  Then I did the file system thing, dataset I think they call it??? 

After a while, I shutdown the NAS.  I got on Ebay and ordered a 1GB
network card.  Everything I have is 1GB so no need getting anything
faster.  It should be a lot faster and may be about all the NAS rig can
handle anyway.

I haven't figured out how to encrypt it yet tho.  I need to research that. 

Still, progress.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6413 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[David Rosenbaum]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1089 bytes --]

Dave

On Sat, Dec 10, 2022, 4:28 PM Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 1:42 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> <SNIP>
> > It does appear that several people are making it so NAS boxes can be
> > easily built by us nerdy types and not be huge.  Things are a bit
> > interesting right now for hardware and such.  Some parts are expensive,
> > hard to find or just plain unavailable.  Still, I suspect that this will
> > get better later on.  The good thing, people are working on this. There
> > is interest in having a option.
> >
>
> I know I've said this before but yes, people are working on it and it
> is buildable by people like us.
>
> https://www.truenas.com/truenas-core/
>
> Any old x64 PC and a few disks will get you up and running. It's
> open source as much as BSD is open source. It's not Linux
> so there was a little learning to do but it wasn't bad.
>
> Mine has a small SSD as the boot drive and then RAID1 pairs
> running OpenZFS for storage. It's inexpensive if you have an
> old computer to build on.
>
> Good luck,
> Mark
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1805 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[David Rosenbaum]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1222 bytes --]

Tanks

Dave

On Sat, Dec 10, 2022, 9:46 PM David Rosenbaum <rosenbaumd181@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> Dave
>
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2022, 4:28 PM Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 1:42 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>> > It does appear that several people are making it so NAS boxes can be
>> > easily built by us nerdy types and not be huge.  Things are a bit
>> > interesting right now for hardware and such.  Some parts are expensive,
>> > hard to find or just plain unavailable.  Still, I suspect that this will
>> > get better later on.  The good thing, people are working on this. There
>> > is interest in having a option.
>> >
>>
>> I know I've said this before but yes, people are working on it and it
>> is buildable by people like us.
>>
>> https://www.truenas.com/truenas-core/
>>
>> Any old x64 PC and a few disks will get you up and running. It's
>> open source as much as BSD is open source. It's not Linux
>> so there was a little learning to do but it wasn't bad.
>>
>> Mine has a small SSD as the boot drive and then RAID1 pairs
>> running OpenZFS for storage. It's inexpensive if you have an
>> old computer to build on.
>>
>> Good luck,
>> Mark
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2268 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[David Rosenbaum]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1413 bytes --]

Can I get sum help with privacy an control of my ph.

David

On Sat, Dec 10, 2022, 9:49 PM David Rosenbaum <rosenbaumd181@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Tanks
>
> Dave
>
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2022, 9:46 PM David Rosenbaum <rosenbaumd181@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 10, 2022, 4:28 PM Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 1:42 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <SNIP>
>>> > It does appear that several people are making it so NAS boxes can be
>>> > easily built by us nerdy types and not be huge.  Things are a bit
>>> > interesting right now for hardware and such.  Some parts are expensive,
>>> > hard to find or just plain unavailable.  Still, I suspect that this
>>> will
>>> > get better later on.  The good thing, people are working on this. There
>>> > is interest in having a option.
>>> >
>>>
>>> I know I've said this before but yes, people are working on it and it
>>> is buildable by people like us.
>>>
>>> https://www.truenas.com/truenas-core/
>>>
>>> Any old x64 PC and a few disks will get you up and running. It's
>>> open source as much as BSD is open source. It's not Linux
>>> so there was a little learning to do but it wasn't bad.
>>>
>>> Mine has a small SSD as the boot drive and then RAID1 pairs
>>> running OpenZFS for storage. It's inexpensive if you have an
>>> old computer to build on.
>>>
>>> Good luck,
>>> Mark
>>>
>>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2792 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

Dale wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> <<< SNIP >>>
>
> Thoughts?  Info to share?  Ideas on a best path forward?  Buy already
> built or build?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-) 
>


I have a couple questions.  I currently have the NAS thingy on a older
Dell machine.  It has a 4 core CPU and 8GBs of ram so it is acceptable,
for the time being at least.  Bad thing is, only two drive bays.  :/  I
have a few questions that I can't quite find answers to with google. 

1:  I have the OS on a USB stick.  From what I've read, they do fail due
to wear at some point.  If I reinstall TrueNAS on a new USB stick, will
it automatically see the previous pools and such or do I have to set
everything up again fresh?  In other words, will I lose data?  This also
includes if it is encrypted.  Right now it is not, but I plan to restart
and set it up as encrypted shortly.  I suspect that it will work like
LVM does.  I just can't see a OS failure causing a loss of all data. 

2:  Hardware change.  The Dell comes with a 100MB network card.  I
ordered a 1GB card.  I plan to put it in when it gets here.  Will it see
the new card and work automatically or will it take some work to get the
network going?  On my Gentoo rig, I have to enable drivers in the kernel
and recompile.  I'm not sure about BSD tho.  Since it is sort of a
binary thing, does TrueNAS handle hardware changes such as a network
card well? 

I also found out something power wise.  The Dell when booted and sitting
idle consumes about 120 watts monitor and all.  My main rig consumes
just under 200 watts.  Not to bad but a Raspberry Pi would likely
consume 15, 20 watts max according to what I've read.  Given the number
of hard drives, it could pull 25 or 30 watts max but doubtful it would
get that high.  I'm looking at 4 bays but also found a 6 bay.  I think 6
is overkill tho. 

Eventually, I plan to build a Raspberry Pi NAS.  When I do, I'll post
everything major I needed, boards, case etc for everyone to look at. 
I'll even try to upload some pics, or share as attachments if there is
interest.  Unless I find one heck of a deal on a used NAS that is. 
Still may build one even then.  ;-)

Thanks.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Frank Steinmetzger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3866 bytes --]

Am Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 10:08:02PM -0600 schrieb Dale:

> I have a couple questions.  I currently have the NAS thingy on a older
> Dell machine.  It has a 4 core CPU and 8GBs of ram so it is acceptable,
> for the time being at least.  Bad thing is, only two drive bays.  :/  I
> have a few questions that I can't quite find answers to with google. 
> 
> 1:  I have the OS on a USB stick.  From what I've read, they do fail due
> to wear at some point.

OTOH, TrueNAS is designed to run from it, so I would assume it handles its
root drive with care. Perhaps you can disable verbose logging and such.

> If I reinstall TrueNAS on a new USB stick, will it automatically see the
> previous pools and such or do I have to set everything up again fresh?

Pools and their metadata are stored inside the pools. In Linux, you don’t
even need to set up fstab. The pool stores its mount point internally. So
you just start the zfs daemon and it does everything magically.

> In other words, will I lose data?

You won’t lose data, of course. But I think you meant settings(?). Probably
about users, shares and such. Perhaps it has an export feature which can be
run periodically.

> This also includes if it is encrypted.

Encryption is a built-in ZFS feature. So yes, it will remember that. Not
sure about the decryption process (keyfile).

> 2:  Hardware change.  The Dell comes with a 100MB network card.  I
> ordered a 1GB card.  I plan to put it in when it gets here.  Will it see
> the new card and work automatically or will it take some work to get the
> network going?

I assume the kernel is built like many general-purpose-distros: with
everything in it you may need for the purpose. But since it is BSD, it may
have driver issues (availability and stability for certain cards).
Sometimes, when I read news about a new product, people complain that the
NIC is not Intel and will thus cause problems with BSD, especially with
niche stuff like the Killer-brand ethernet cards.

> and recompile.  I'm not sure about BSD tho.  Since it is sort of a
> binary thing, does TrueNAS handle hardware changes such as a network
> card well? 

I don’t see a connection between being a “binary thing” and hardware change.
Your gentoo is also a binary thing once it is compiled. ;-)

> I also found out something power wise.  The Dell when booted and sitting
> idle consumes about 120 watts monitor and all.

I figured as much when you mentioned its 100 Mbps card. It must be old then,
and back then, idle power was a non-issue.

> My main rig consumes just under 200 watts.  Not to bad

That’s a very lot for my taste. With a lower mid-range GPU (110 W Radeon R7
370) and one spinning rust, my 8-year-old PC used to idle at 50 W. Without
the HDD and with Intel graphics it is now at 27 W. Still not a good number
when compared with today’s hardware.

> but a Raspberry Pi would likely consume 15, 20 watts max according to what
> I've read.

My 3B idles at 5 W tops, I think. It cannot be much more under load since it
comes without a built-in heat spreader.

> Given the number of hard drives, it could pull 25 or 30 watts max but
> doubtful it would get that high.  I'm looking at 4 bays but also found a 6
> bay.  I think 6 is overkill tho. 

My four-bay NAS has four 6 TB drives and it draws around 50 W at idle. But
that’s because it is a server board, incuding IPMI chip (and—interestingly—
an internal USB-A for an OS stick). And it’s Haswell generation, so almost a
decade old design. For this reason I switch it on only every few weeks or
even months and only keep it running for a short time.

-- 
Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.

Death is a permanent damage.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> Am Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 10:08:02PM -0600 schrieb Dale:
>
>> I have a couple questions.  I currently have the NAS thingy on a older
>> Dell machine.  It has a 4 core CPU and 8GBs of ram so it is acceptable,
>> for the time being at least.  Bad thing is, only two drive bays.  :/  I
>> have a few questions that I can't quite find answers to with google. 
>>
>> 1:  I have the OS on a USB stick.  From what I've read, they do fail due
>> to wear at some point.
> OTOH, TrueNAS is designed to run from it, so I would assume it handles its
> root drive with care. Perhaps you can disable verbose logging and such.

I've just read that changes were made a while back and they recommend
not using a USB stick anymore.  It works but they tend to not last as
long as they once did.  There could be any number of variables in that
tho. 

>
>> If I reinstall TrueNAS on a new USB stick, will it automatically see the
>> previous pools and such or do I have to set everything up again fresh?
> Pools and their metadata are stored inside the pools. In Linux, you don’t
> even need to set up fstab. The pool stores its mount point internally. So
> you just start the zfs daemon and it does everything magically.
>
>> In other words, will I lose data?
> You won’t lose data, of course. But I think you meant settings(?). Probably
> about users, shares and such. Perhaps it has an export feature which can be
> run periodically.
>
>> This also includes if it is encrypted.
> Encryption is a built-in ZFS feature. So yes, it will remember that. Not
> sure about the decryption process (keyfile).

That's what I was expecting.  I may test that theory just so I don't run
into any surprises.  I kinda figure it works a lot like LVM does. 
Different but details stored on the drive itself.  Basically, works
wherever you put it. 


>
>> 2:  Hardware change.  The Dell comes with a 100MB network card.  I
>> ordered a 1GB card.  I plan to put it in when it gets here.  Will it see
>> the new card and work automatically or will it take some work to get the
>> network going?
> I assume the kernel is built like many general-purpose-distros: with
> everything in it you may need for the purpose. But since it is BSD, it may
> have driver issues (availability and stability for certain cards).
> Sometimes, when I read news about a new product, people complain that the
> NIC is not Intel and will thus cause problems with BSD, especially with
> niche stuff like the Killer-brand ethernet cards.
>
>> and recompile.  I'm not sure about BSD tho.  Since it is sort of a
>> binary thing, does TrueNAS handle hardware changes such as a network
>> card well? 
> I don’t see a connection between being a “binary thing” and hardware change.
> Your gentoo is also a binary thing once it is compiled. ;-)

My thinking was, I didn't compile any of the software myself.  Sort of
like if I install a binary based distro.  It may have a feature or
driver turned on, it may not. Maybe you are right, it will at least have
the driver it needs built as a module and it will load it and work
fine.  I have the same card in my Gentoo box so it is Linux compatible
so in theory, should work in BSD as well.  I'd think.  ;-)  First thing,
it has to get here.  It's already two days later than originally claimed. 

>> I also found out something power wise.  The Dell when booted and sitting
>> idle consumes about 120 watts monitor and all.
> I figured as much when you mentioned its 100 Mbps card. It must be old then,
> and back then, idle power was a non-issue.
>
>> My main rig consumes just under 200 watts.  Not to bad
> That’s a very lot for my taste. With a lower mid-range GPU (110 W Radeon R7
> 370) and one spinning rust, my 8-year-old PC used to idle at 50 W. Without
> the HDD and with Intel graphics it is now at 27 W. Still not a good number
> when compared with today’s hardware.

My Gentoo rig is a little old too.  AMD 8 core CPU, 32GBs of memory,
LOTS of hard drives.  I think there is eight in there right now.  A
couple may be older but most are newer. 


>> but a Raspberry Pi would likely consume 15, 20 watts max according to what
>> I've read.
> My 3B idles at 5 W tops, I think. It cannot be much more under load since it
> comes without a built-in heat spreader.
>
>> Given the number of hard drives, it could pull 25 or 30 watts max but
>> doubtful it would get that high.  I'm looking at 4 bays but also found a 6
>> bay.  I think 6 is overkill tho. 
> My four-bay NAS has four 6 TB drives and it draws around 50 W at idle. But
> that’s because it is a server board, incuding IPMI chip (and—interestingly—
> an internal USB-A for an OS stick). And it’s Haswell generation, so almost a
> decade old design. For this reason I switch it on only every few weeks or
> even months and only keep it running for a short time.
>

From what I've read, the Raspberry Pi pretty much all sip on power. 
They really efficient.  It's nice to know that even tho the one you
mention is more powerful, even it only pulls 50 watts.  Thing is, I
don't plan to run the one I build except when updating backups.  The
rest of the time, tucked into the fire safe. 

Thanks for the info.  Now to read next response. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Mark Knecht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1881 bytes --]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 9:08 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
> 2:  Hardware change.  The Dell comes with a 100MB network card.  I
> ordered a 1GB card.  I plan to put it in when it gets here.  Will it see
> the new card and work automatically or will it take some work to get the
> network going?  On my Gentoo rig, I have to enable drivers in the kernel
> and recompile.  I'm not sure about BSD tho.  Since it is sort of a
> binary thing, does TrueNAS handle hardware changes such as a network
> card well?
<SNIP>

At the risk of repeating a bit of what Frank said I'll put in my 2 cents as
a
TrueNAS user. No intention to be snarky on my side, just pointing
a few things out.

1) Welcome to the world of "not Gentoo". What I think you are describing
as a 'binary thing' is, for the most part, the way we work out here.

2) I disagree with your description of how "it's done" in Gentoo Land. You
made a choice to put your network driver in the kernel. You could have
built it as a module and loaded that module. Both would have worked.

3) Out here in Not Gentoo Land (NGL) they supply you with 100's of
modules and generally installers figure out which ones to load. My main
NGL machine has literally over 100 modules loaded. I don't know what
they do (for the most part) and mostly I don't care.

4) While I cannot tell you if the card you ordered has a Linux or FreeBSD
driver, I can point out that on the left hand side of your TrueNAS
dashboard, accessible in your browser hopefully, there is a pulldown
called 'Network'. It should hopefully show you the current network
interface which in my case is called 're0'. On the right you might,
hopefully
possibly see a big blue button called "ADD". Consider giving that button
a push after you've installed your new card.

   I believe you will get this figured out very soon. Continue exploring
the NGL world.

Mark

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2440 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3032 bytes --]

Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 9:08 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com
> <mailto:rdalek1967@gmail.com>> wrote:
> <SNIP>
> > 2:  Hardware change.  The Dell comes with a 100MB network card.  I
> > ordered a 1GB card.  I plan to put it in when it gets here.  Will it see
> > the new card and work automatically or will it take some work to get the
> > network going?  On my Gentoo rig, I have to enable drivers in the kernel
> > and recompile.  I'm not sure about BSD tho.  Since it is sort of a
> > binary thing, does TrueNAS handle hardware changes such as a network
> > card well?
> <SNIP>
>
> At the risk of repeating a bit of what Frank said I'll put in my 2
> cents as a
> TrueNAS user. No intention to be snarky on my side, just pointing
> a few things out.
>
> 1) Welcome to the world of "not Gentoo". What I think you are describing
> as a 'binary thing' is, for the most part, the way we work out here.
>
> 2) I disagree with your description of how "it's done" in Gentoo Land. You
> made a choice to put your network driver in the kernel. You could have
> built it as a module and loaded that module. Both would have worked.
>
> 3) Out here in Not Gentoo Land (NGL) they supply you with 100's of
> modules and generally installers figure out which ones to load. My main 
> NGL machine has literally over 100 modules loaded. I don't know what 
> they do (for the most part) and mostly I don't care.
>
> 4) While I cannot tell you if the card you ordered has a Linux or FreeBSD
> driver, I can point out that on the left hand side of your TrueNAS 
> dashboard, accessible in your browser hopefully, there is a pulldown
> called 'Network'. It should hopefully show you the current network
> interface which in my case is called 're0'. On the right you might,
> hopefully
> possibly see a big blue button called "ADD". Consider giving that button 
> a push after you've installed your new card.
>
>    I believe you will get this figured out very soon. Continue exploring
> the NGL world. 
>
> Mark


1:  The binary thing is a distro or package that I don't compile
myself.  So, yea, not Gentoo. 

2:  True for some I guess.  The only module I have is my video drivers. 
I build everything else I need into the kernel.  It's how I learned to
do it ages ago and so far, it works really well.  BSD tho may do that a
different way.  I played with BSD once years ago.  I been doing the
Gentoo way for a LOT longer.  Last binary distro I used was Mandrake and
it changed names a long time ago I think. 

3:  That's what I'm hoping for but with no recent BSD experience and not
able to find info with google, I hoped someone who used TrueNAS or BSD
would know how its done.  A couple people did.  ;-) 

4:  I have a monitor hooked up still so I can do it the text way if
needed.  It mentions about setting up the network as one of the
options.  Since you mentioned it has a GUI option, I may just do that. 
So long as it works. 

Thanks for the info.  It helped. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4722 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Frank Steinmetzger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1466 bytes --]

Am Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 04:43:25PM -0600 schrieb Dale:

> > 4) While I cannot tell you if the card you ordered has a Linux or FreeBSD
> > driver, I can point out that on the left hand side of your TrueNAS 
> > dashboard, accessible in your browser hopefully, there is a pulldown
> > called 'Network'. It should hopefully show you the current network
> > interface which in my case is called 're0'. On the right you might,
> > hopefully
> > possibly see a big blue button called "ADD". Consider giving that button 
> > a push after you've installed your new card.

> 4:  I have a monitor hooked up still so I can do it the text way if
> needed.  It mentions about setting up the network as one of the
> options.
>
> Since you mentioned it has a GUI option, I may just do that. 
> So long as it works. 

That’s what I referred to earlier: you get a web interface built-in that
takes care of all the chores. I always wanted to set up shares on my NAS so
that guests could easily access it anonymously, but safely (meaning: no
write access). I never had the patience to go through the whole setup of ftp
and/or samba with the proper users and directories. But a web UI could take
care of all of that. Plus it’s shiny. :D

My point is: there is no need for a monitor. ;-)

-- 
Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.

LCARS - Linux Can Also Run Starships

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> Am Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 04:43:25PM -0600 schrieb Dale:
>
>>> 4) While I cannot tell you if the card you ordered has a Linux or FreeBSD
>>> driver, I can point out that on the left hand side of your TrueNAS 
>>> dashboard, accessible in your browser hopefully, there is a pulldown
>>> called 'Network'. It should hopefully show you the current network
>>> interface which in my case is called 're0'. On the right you might,
>>> hopefully
>>> possibly see a big blue button called "ADD". Consider giving that button 
>>> a push after you've installed your new card.
>> 4:  I have a monitor hooked up still so I can do it the text way if
>> needed.  It mentions about setting up the network as one of the
>> options.
>>
>> Since you mentioned it has a GUI option, I may just do that. 
>> So long as it works. 
> That’s what I referred to earlier: you get a web interface built-in that
> takes care of all the chores. I always wanted to set up shares on my NAS so
> that guests could easily access it anonymously, but safely (meaning: no
> write access). I never had the patience to go through the whole setup of ftp
> and/or samba with the proper users and directories. But a web UI could take
> care of all of that. Plus it’s shiny. :D
>
> My point is: there is no need for a monitor. ;-)
>

I noticing that now.  Once the install is done and you have the IP
address, heck, you don't need a monitor for much of anything it
appears.  I even found a console so one can type in things to do.  I
wonder, could one install the LVM stuff and use that?  That would be
interesting.  I wonder if there is a NAS software that uses LVM
instead.  Interesting thought.  I just may go bug google on that one.  o_O

The network card is getting closer.  May be here tomorrow.  Maybe.  One
can never really tell about these things. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Frank Steinmetzger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1559 bytes --]

Am Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 09:50:01PM -0600 schrieb Dale:

> > My point is: there is no need for a monitor. ;-)
> >
> 
> I noticing that now.  Once the install is done and you have the IP
> address, heck, you don't need a monitor for much of anything it
> appears.  I even found a console so one can type in things to do.  I
> wonder, could one install the LVM stuff and use that?  That would be
> interesting.
>
> I wonder if there is a NAS software that uses LVM instead.  Interesting
> thought.  I just may go bug google on that one.  o_O

Interestingly, after feeding LVM NAS to my search engine, one of the first
results was a Qnap user forum thread which reads that Qnaps use LVM. It
makes sense, since they most likely use a “normal” linux software RAID
underneath, and LVM is then the best way to dynamically manage the space on
top of that.

While ZFS has the same pooling feature as LVM, meaning you can bunch several
disks together to create a JBOD, it has one big disadvantage over LVM: you
can grow a pool, but not shrink it. Actually, while reading up on stuff for
this thread, I learned that these days it is actually possible to remove a
mirror vdev from a mirror-only pool (a mirror can technically also be a
single device). But according to
https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/solaris/ZFSWhyNoVdevRemoval
it’s not perfect either.

-- 
Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.

5 of 4 people have problems with subsets.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> Am Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 09:50:01PM -0600 schrieb Dale:
>
>>> My point is: there is no need for a monitor. ;-)
>>>
>> I noticing that now.  Once the install is done and you have the IP
>> address, heck, you don't need a monitor for much of anything it
>> appears.  I even found a console so one can type in things to do.  I
>> wonder, could one install the LVM stuff and use that?  That would be
>> interesting.
>>
>> I wonder if there is a NAS software that uses LVM instead.  Interesting
>> thought.  I just may go bug google on that one.  o_O
> Interestingly, after feeding LVM NAS to my search engine, one of the first
> results was a Qnap user forum thread which reads that Qnaps use LVM. It
> makes sense, since they most likely use a “normal” linux software RAID
> underneath, and LVM is then the best way to dynamically manage the space on
> top of that.
>
> While ZFS has the same pooling feature as LVM, meaning you can bunch several
> disks together to create a JBOD, it has one big disadvantage over LVM: you
> can grow a pool, but not shrink it. Actually, while reading up on stuff for
> this thread, I learned that these days it is actually possible to remove a
> mirror vdev from a mirror-only pool (a mirror can technically also be a
> single device). But according to
> https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/solaris/ZFSWhyNoVdevRemoval
> it’s not perfect either.
>


With LVM, I usually either move data to a larger drive or just add a
additional drive.  I think I shrunk once, I think.  Still, one always
wants to have options.

One thing about LVM, I already know how to use it.  I've got notes on
how to do things and it has worked.  With ZFS I'd have to learn it all
over again plus it could confuse me with my using LVM on my main rig. 
In a way, if I build a Raspberry NAS, I'd like to have Linux and LVM on
the thing.  At least then I have experience moving data and such.  Right
now, I don't even have the basics of ZFS or BSD.  I'm not saying TrueNAS
is bad or anything, just that I don't really care for the learning
curve.  Then the confusion part on top of that. 

I've read there are distros built for Raspberry thingys.  I'd be shocked
if it isn't doable.  I'd be shocked if someone hasn't already done it
even.   

Time will tell I guess.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Frank Steinmetzger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2173 bytes --]

Am Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 12:49:01AM -0600 schrieb Dale:

> > While ZFS has the same pooling feature as LVM, meaning you can bunch several
> > disks together to create a JBOD, it has one big disadvantage over LVM: you
> > can grow a pool, but not shrink it. Actually, while reading up on stuff for
> > this thread, I learned that these days it is actually possible to remove a
> > mirror vdev from a mirror-only pool (a mirror can technically also be a
> > single device). But according to
> > https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/solaris/ZFSWhyNoVdevRemoval
> > it’s not perfect either.
> >
> 
> One thing about LVM, I already know how to use it.  I've got notes on
> how to do things and it has worked.  With ZFS I'd have to learn it all
> over again plus it could confuse me with my using LVM on my main rig. 
> In a way, if I build a Raspberry NAS, I'd like to have Linux and LVM on
> the thing.  At least then I have experience moving data and such.  Right
> now, I don't even have the basics of ZFS or BSD.  I'm not saying TrueNAS
> is bad or anything, just that I don't really care for the learning
> curve.  Then the confusion part on top of that. 

The beauty of the WebUI is that it abstracts all of that away. You don’t
have to be in the know about the inner works and create pools and vdevs by
hand. Though it might be handy in case something breaks in an unexpected
way.

> I've read there are distros built for Raspberry thingys.  I'd be shocked
> if it isn't doable.  I'd be shocked if someone hasn't already done it
> even.   

It’s called RaspberryPi OS (formerly knows as Raspbian). It has the kernel,
some start scripts and settings files that control which stuff to load at
boot. Pis boot differently to x86 hardware; there is no Grub & co.

I don’t particularly like Debian’s apt, which is why I’m also experimenting
with Arch on arm, Arch being my favorite distro for my everyday these days.

-- 
Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.

“Oh, gravity, thou art a heartless bitch.” – Dr. Sheldon Cooper

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Mark Knecht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1214 bytes --]

On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 8:50 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> I noticing that now.  Once the install is done and you have the IP
> address, heck, you don't need a monitor for much of anything it
> appears.  I even found a console so one can type in things to do.

Exactly. My TrueNAS machines haven't had a monitor attached
since they were built. Everything you need is there. It's more a
storage appliance than a computer.

> I
> wonder, could one install the LVM stuff and use that?  That would be
> interesting.  I wonder if there is a NAS software that uses LVM
> instead.  Interesting thought.  I just may go bug google on that one.  o_O

Maybe I'm missing the point but why would you want LVM on a
storage pool? If I'm doing backups I just want space. I let TrueNas
put it on disk and give it back if asked. Why put another layer
of indirection?

If you're intending to use it as simple NAS - i.e. - the only copy
of some data on your network - then possibly LVM might
be interesting, but then you need a second TrueNAS box
to back that up. NAS as a mountable data location is
different than NAS doing backups which is what I thought
this thread was about. What am I not remembering?

- Mark

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1591 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1434 bytes --]

Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 8:50 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com
> <mailto:rdalek1967@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> > I
> > wonder, could one install the LVM stuff and use that?  That would be
> > interesting.  I wonder if there is a NAS software that uses LVM
> > instead.  Interesting thought.  I just may go bug google on that
> one.  o_O
>
> Maybe I'm missing the point but why would you want LVM on a
> storage pool? If I'm doing backups I just want space. I let TrueNas 
> put it on disk and give it back if asked. Why put another layer
> of indirection?
>
> If you're intending to use it as simple NAS - i.e. - the only copy
> of some data on your network - then possibly LVM might
> be interesting, but then you need a second TrueNAS box
> to back that up. NAS as a mountable data location is
> different than NAS doing backups which is what I thought
> this thread was about. What am I not remembering?
>
> - Mark

It's more about me being more used to using LVM.  Also, more used to
Linux as well.  BSD is not something I have much experience with and
until recently, none with ZFS.  Even the little experience I have with
BSD was well over a decade ago, maybe two decades ago.  I barely
remember it really.

By replacing ZFS with LVM, I'm working with something I'm familiar with
and less likely to mess up things.  Things get messed up enough without
adding more confusion.  ;-)

Dale

:-)  :-) 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2515 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Mark Knecht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2520 bytes --]

On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 8:52 AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 8:50 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I
> > wonder, could one install the LVM stuff and use that?  That would be
> > interesting.  I wonder if there is a NAS software that uses LVM
> > instead.  Interesting thought.  I just may go bug google on that one.
 o_O
>
> Maybe I'm missing the point but why would you want LVM on a
> storage pool? If I'm doing backups I just want space. I let TrueNas
> put it on disk and give it back if asked. Why put another layer
> of indirection?
>
> If you're intending to use it as simple NAS - i.e. - the only copy
> of some data on your network - then possibly LVM might
> be interesting, but then you need a second TrueNAS box
> to back that up. NAS as a mountable data location is
> different than NAS doing backups which is what I thought
> this thread was about. What am I not remembering?
>
> - Mark
>
>
> It's more about me being more used to using LVM.  Also, more used to
Linux as well.  BSD is not something I have much experience with and until
recently, none with ZFS.  Even the little experience I have with BSD was
well over a decade ago, maybe two decades ago.  I barely remember it really.
>
> By replacing ZFS with LVM, I'm working with something I'm familiar with
and less likely to mess up things.  Things get messed up enough without
adding more confusion.  ;-)
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)

Hummm...I don't know Dale, I don't know... ZFS is a file system.
LVM is an abstraction on top (or underneath?) of a file system.
My understanding of LVM is that it frees you from hard decisions
on partition sizes, not that it replaces ZFS or ext3/4/5.

You may or may not know this but TrueNAS is available as a
Linux version:

https://www.truenas.com/blog/first-release-of-truenas-on-linux/

I don't recommend it. It's new. Let someone else figure it out. However
it might be more to your liking, and because it's Linux you'd be more
comfortable messing it up. ;0-

WRT you I recommend that you try living in NGL for a while. Possibly
you are just a bit too indoctrinated in the religion of building packages
30-50 times a year believing (without hard data) that it provides value.
Instead you might just consider relaxing and letting the system
take care of itself. In the last year I've only updated my TrueNAS box
twice that I can remember.

On the other hand if system tweaking is what brings you joy then
Que Sera Sera .....

Good luck,
Mark

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3318 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4253 bytes --]

Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 8:52 AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com
> <mailto:rdalek1967@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Mark Knecht wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 8:50 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com
> <mailto:rdalek1967@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > > I
> > > wonder, could one install the LVM stuff and use that?  That would be
> > > interesting.  I wonder if there is a NAS software that uses LVM
> > > instead.  Interesting thought.  I just may go bug google on that
> one.  o_O
> >
> > Maybe I'm missing the point but why would you want LVM on a
> > storage pool? If I'm doing backups I just want space. I let TrueNas
> > put it on disk and give it back if asked. Why put another layer
> > of indirection?
> >
> > If you're intending to use it as simple NAS - i.e. - the only copy
> > of some data on your network - then possibly LVM might
> > be interesting, but then you need a second TrueNAS box
> > to back that up. NAS as a mountable data location is
> > different than NAS doing backups which is what I thought
> > this thread was about. What am I not remembering?
> >
> > - Mark
> >
> >
> > It's more about me being more used to using LVM.  Also, more used to
> Linux as well.  BSD is not something I have much experience with and
> until recently, none with ZFS.  Even the little experience I have with
> BSD was well over a decade ago, maybe two decades ago.  I barely
> remember it really.
> >
> > By replacing ZFS with LVM, I'm working with something I'm familiar
> with and less likely to mess up things.  Things get messed up enough
> without adding more confusion.  ;-)
> >
> > Dale
> >
> > :-)  :-)
>
> Hummm...I don't know Dale, I don't know... ZFS is a file system.
> LVM is an abstraction on top (or underneath?) of a file system.
> My understanding of LVM is that it frees you from hard decisions
> on partition sizes, not that it replaces ZFS or ext3/4/5.
>

That is true.  Thing is, I've learned how to manage LVM even with
encrypted data.  I've also learned how to expand storage without losing
data or getting confused about what I'm doing.  To me, using LVM is
pretty easy given the notes I have for the tasks I do most often. 


> You may or may not know this but TrueNAS is available as a 
> Linux version:
>
> https://www.truenas.com/blog/first-release-of-truenas-on-linux/
>
> I don't recommend it. It's new. Let someone else figure it out. However
> it might be more to your liking, and because it's Linux you'd be more
> comfortable messing it up. ;0-
>
> WRT you I recommend that you try living in NGL for a while. Possibly 
> you are just a bit too indoctrinated in the religion of building packages 
> 30-50 times a year believing (without hard data) that it provides value. 
> Instead you might just consider relaxing and letting the system 
> take care of itself. In the last year I've only updated my TrueNAS box
> twice that I can remember.
>
> On the other hand if system tweaking is what brings you joy then
> Que Sera Sera .....
>
> Good luck,
> Mark


It's not that I want to compile things, it's that I want to use things
I'm already really familiar with.  If I bought a Raspberry Pi and built
a NAS with it, I don't care if I compile the software on it or not as
long as it has the software I need or I can install what I need.  From
what I've read, compiling on a Raspberry isn't much fun.  It's very time
consuming. Having a OS, binary one at that, that is Linux based is a big
plus.  I can run LVM, cryptsetup and such in likely every Linux distro
out there and get the same result as on my Gentoo box.  Switching to
BSD, using ZFS, means I have to learn a whole new set of tools and
methods.  I had enough fun learning LVM and I don't think LVM is going
to die anytime soon.  It should be around for the foreseeable future. 
As it is, even now, I still don't get how ZFS works.  I just followed a
guide to get it working, sort of.  It's still not encrypted.  Figuring
that out is next.  That should be fun. 

My network card is out for delivery.  A few days late but better than
never I guess.  I'll see if the drivers needed for it are available as
modules or not.  I suspect they are tho based on info in this thread. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6595 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Mark Knecht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2249 bytes --]

On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 9:42 AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
<SNIP>
>
> That is true.  Thing is, I've learned how to manage LVM even with
encrypted data.  I've also learned how to expand storage without losing
data or getting confused about what I'm doing.  To me, using LVM is pretty
easy given the notes I have for the tasks I do most often.
>
<SNIP>
> It's not that I want to compile things, it's that I want to use things
I'm already really familiar with.  If I bought a Raspberry Pi and built a
NAS with it, I don't care if I compile the software on it or not as long as
it has the software I need or I can install what I need.  From what I've
read, compiling on a Raspberry isn't much fun.  It's very time consuming.
Having a OS, binary one at that, that is Linux based is a big plus.  I can
run LVM, cryptsetup and such in likely every Linux distro out there and get
the same result as on my Gentoo box.  Switching to BSD, using ZFS, means I
have to learn a whole new set of tools and methods.  I had enough fun
learning LVM and I don't think LVM is going to die anytime soon.  It should
be around for the foreseeable future.  As it is, even now, I still don't
get how ZFS works.  I just followed a guide to get it working, sort of.
It's still not encrypted.  Figuring that out is next.  That should be fun.
>

Maybe just live with TrueNAS for a month or two and get to know it on a
friendly level first?

I think I'm still not understanding the need for LVM. Help me understand. I
see ZFS on TrueNAS as a combination of mdadm and a file system. I'm not
sure I even have partitions. My ZFS pool is just using the whole drive, but
that was all I wanted. Are you planning on using your drive space for other
things? (Plex server in a jail, or remote real-time storage for instance)
If so maybe LVM would help isolate backups - which I thought was why you
wanted this machine - from a VM of some type running on the same machine -
which I don't think you've suggested.

> My network card is out for delivery.  A few days late but better than
never I guess.  I'll see if the drivers needed for it are available as
modules or not.  I suspect they are tho based on info in this thread.

Good luck. Hope the new card makes your life easier.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2573 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[David Rosenbaum]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4271 bytes --]

Dave

On Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 11:42 AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 8:52 AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Mark Knecht wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 8:50 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I
> > > wonder, could one install the LVM stuff and use that?  That would be
> > > interesting.  I wonder if there is a NAS software that uses LVM
> > > instead.  Interesting thought.  I just may go bug google on that one.
>  o_O
> >
> > Maybe I'm missing the point but why would you want LVM on a
> > storage pool? If I'm doing backups I just want space. I let TrueNas
> > put it on disk and give it back if asked. Why put another layer
> > of indirection?
> >
> > If you're intending to use it as simple NAS - i.e. - the only copy
> > of some data on your network - then possibly LVM might
> > be interesting, but then you need a second TrueNAS box
> > to back that up. NAS as a mountable data location is
> > different than NAS doing backups which is what I thought
> > this thread was about. What am I not remembering?
> >
> > - Mark
> >
> >
> > It's more about me being more used to using LVM.  Also, more used to
> Linux as well.  BSD is not something I have much experience with and until
> recently, none with ZFS.  Even the little experience I have with BSD was
> well over a decade ago, maybe two decades ago.  I barely remember it really.
> >
> > By replacing ZFS with LVM, I'm working with something I'm familiar with
> and less likely to mess up things.  Things get messed up enough without
> adding more confusion.  ;-)
> >
> > Dale
> >
> > :-)  :-)
>
> Hummm...I don't know Dale, I don't know... ZFS is a file system.
> LVM is an abstraction on top (or underneath?) of a file system.
> My understanding of LVM is that it frees you from hard decisions
> on partition sizes, not that it replaces ZFS or ext3/4/5.
>
>
> That is true.  Thing is, I've learned how to manage LVM even with
> encrypted data.  I've also learned how to expand storage without losing
> data or getting confused about what I'm doing.  To me, using LVM is pretty
> easy given the notes I have for the tasks I do most often.
>
>
> You may or may not know this but TrueNAS is available as a
> Linux version:
>
> https://www.truenas.com/blog/first-release-of-truenas-on-linux/
>
> I don't recommend it. It's new. Let someone else figure it out. However
> it might be more to your liking, and because it's Linux you'd be more
> comfortable messing it up. ;0-
>
> WRT you I recommend that you try living in NGL for a while. Possibly
> you are just a bit too indoctrinated in the religion of building packages
> 30-50 times a year believing (without hard data) that it provides value.
> Instead you might just consider relaxing and letting the system
> take care of itself. In the last year I've only updated my TrueNAS box
> twice that I can remember.
>
> On the other hand if system tweaking is what brings you joy then
> Que Sera Sera .....
>
> Good luck,
> Mark
>
>
>
> It's not that I want to compile things, it's that I want to use things I'm
> already really familiar with.  If I bought a Raspberry Pi and built a NAS
> with it, I don't care if I compile the software on it or not as long as it
> has the software I need or I can install what I need.  From what I've read,
> compiling on a Raspberry isn't much fun.  It's very time consuming. Having
> a OS, binary one at that, that is Linux based is a big plus.  I can run
> LVM, cryptsetup and such in likely every Linux distro out there and get the
> same result as on my Gentoo box.  Switching to BSD, using ZFS, means I have
> to learn a whole new set of tools and methods.  I had enough fun learning
> LVM and I don't think LVM is going to die anytime soon.  It should be
> around for the foreseeable future.  As it is, even now, I still don't get
> how ZFS works.  I just followed a guide to get it working, sort of.  It's
> still not encrypted.  Figuring that out is next.  That should be fun.
>
> My network card is out for delivery.  A few days late but better than
> never I guess.  I'll see if the drivers needed for it are available as
> modules or not.  I suspect they are tho based on info in this thread.
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6816 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Wol]

On 17/12/2022 16:09, Mark Knecht wrote:
> Hummm...I don't know Dale, I don't know... ZFS is a file system.
> LVM is an abstraction on top (or underneath?) of a file system.
> My understanding of LVM is that it frees you from hard decisions
> on partition sizes, not that it replaces ZFS or ext3/4/5.

Do one thing and do it well. That's LVM. Or ext.

Jack of all trades. That's ZFS.

Do you want the filesystem doing everything from the hard drive up? Use ZFS.

Do you want the system layered, with each layer doing one job? Use 
dm-integrity to protect against corruption, raid to join the disks, lvm 
to partition them, and ext to manage the directories and files.

I do the latter ...

Cheers,
Wol

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Mark Knecht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 910 bytes --]

On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 12:10 PM Wol <antlists@youngman.org.uk> wrote:
<SNIP>
> Do you want the system layered, with each layer doing one job? Use
> dm-integrity to protect against corruption, raid to join the disks, lvm
> to partition them, and ext to manage the directories and files.
>
> I do the latter ...

No argument there, at least on a group of drives where you
want to have flexibility in the future. Desktop computers or
system drives certainly. You didn't tell me what replaces
the compression aspect of the problem but I'm sure there's
something. It's a great strategy if you have the expertise and
time to set it up and then manage it when a problem arises,
if it ever arises.

I'm just asking what's the purpose of doing LVM, or your
suggested layering, specifically on a storage pool for a
home user like Dale? That's the part I don't understand,
especially for a new NAS user like Dale?

Mark

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1278 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3770 bytes --]

Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 12:10 PM Wol <antlists@youngman.org.uk
> <mailto:antlists@youngman.org.uk>> wrote:
> <SNIP>
> > Do you want the system layered, with each layer doing one job? Use
> > dm-integrity to protect against corruption, raid to join the disks, lvm
> > to partition them, and ext to manage the directories and files.
> >
> > I do the latter ...
>
> No argument there, at least on a group of drives where you 
> want to have flexibility in the future. Desktop computers or
> system drives certainly. You didn't tell me what replaces
> the compression aspect of the problem but I'm sure there's
> something. It's a great strategy if you have the expertise and
> time to set it up and then manage it when a problem arises,
> if it ever arises. 
>
> I'm just asking what's the purpose of doing LVM, or your
> suggested layering, specifically on a storage pool for a 
> home user like Dale? That's the part I don't understand, 
> especially for a new NAS user like Dale?
>
> Mark
>
>
>

My reasoning is simple, I'm already familiar with LVM and how to manage
it.  While I swap drives on my Gentoo rig pretty regular lately, I don't
want to be limited from doing that on a NAS either.  If for example I
want to replace a 10TB drive with a 16TB drive, LVM makes that easy and
I know how to do it already.  With ZFS tho, is that even doable and if
it is, do I want to learn to do it with a new tool?  From what I've
seen, I'm not even sure you can do that.  It seems you can expand by
adding a drive but not replace or shrink. 

As a example.  I went back to a basic pool of two drives.  I then
recreated a dataset, or whatever it is called, and added for it to be
encrypted.  Since I did that, I get write errors.  I can mount it just
fine but that's it.  I have no idea what the cause is, google isn't
helping and to be honest, I'm thinking about target practice for the
thing.  It took me a good long while to set up the most basic thing. 
Adding encryption shouldn't be hard but apparently, it is more difficult
than I thought.  That or its so secure even I can't use it even with the
password.  lol 

This is what I like about LVM and cryptsetup.  I create a partition, or
use a whole drive, as needed.  I use cryptsetup to start the process
with one drive.  I then put ext4 on top of that.  Then I add a second
drive to that pv, add that to the volume group, extend the file system,
all done.  And it is encrypted as well.  If I need to move from one
drive to say a larger drive, no problem.  Add drive, move data, remove
old drive, extend file system if needed, all done.  I have notes but
I've done it a lot recently and have the general idea still glued to the
back of my head.  ;-)  Thing is, ZFS isn't making sense to me so I'm
clueless where to start when something goes wrong or even getting it to
work period.  I may try watching a video on ZFS and see if that helps. 
Maybe it will, maybe I'll still prefer LVM.  After all, I'm a old dog. 
New tricks ain't easy.  ROFL 

If I bought a pre-made NAS, I'd just have to deal with it.  I'd keep
hammering until I got it to where I could backup my data.  If I build a
Raspberry thing, NAS software may not be my first choice.  Maybe, just
maybe, my light bulb will pop on and I can make sense of TrueNAS and
ZFS.  If so, fine.  Right now, it's a lot of work with really no gain. 
I'm not able to backup my data yet.  It's a brick, time consuming and
confusing brick at that. 

After supper, I'm rebooting and see if I can beat some sense into
again.  Seriously considering using dd and starting over from scratch. 
I can't figure out how to do that with the GUI thing.  No delete button,
that I can find anyway. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5159 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Mark Knecht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1109 bytes --]

On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 4:42 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> My reasoning is simple, I'm already familiar with LVM and how to manage
it.
<SNIP>

Take the machine, wipe it and build a NAS from scratch with Gentoo. If all
you want is an NFS mount that won't be difficult. Add an NFS server, export
your mount and you're done, right? Managing it over the long term will be
far more work than TrueNAS but you will be comfortable with changing disks
and adding network cards which is important to you. Life is too short to
deal with things you really don't enjoy.

I would not suggest you look at Ubuntu Server because it's NGL. 10 minutes
to install, 3 minutes to figure out how to add the NFS server. However it's
a different package manager and truly not as nice as emerge/portage so you
probably won't like that part of NGL either. I truly don't like apt, but it
works if I stay in my lane so I've learned to do that, the advantage being
I've never had to build a package from scratch and I've never in 5 or 6
years had an update fail.

Wipe the machine. You'll be happier.

Best wishes,
Mark

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1387 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2672 bytes --]

Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 4:42 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com
> <mailto:rdalek1967@gmail.com>> wrote:
> <SNIP>
> >
> > My reasoning is simple, I'm already familiar with LVM and how to
> manage it.  
> <SNIP>
>
> Take the machine, wipe it and build a NAS from scratch with Gentoo. If
> all you want is an NFS mount that won't be difficult. Add an NFS
> server, export your mount and you're done, right? Managing it over the
> long term will be far more work than TrueNAS but you will be
> comfortable with changing disks and adding network cards which
> is important to you. Life is too short to deal with things you really
> don't enjoy.
>
> I would not suggest you look at Ubuntu Server because it's NGL. 10
> minutes to install, 3 minutes to figure out how to add the NFS server.
> However it's a different package manager and truly not as nice as
> emerge/portage so you probably won't like that part of NGL either. I
> truly don't like apt, but it works if I stay in my lane so I've
> learned to do that, the advantage being I've never had to build a
> package from scratch and I've never in 5 or 6 years had an update fail.
>
> Wipe the machine. You'll be happier.
>
> Best wishes,
> Mark


Well, I finally got it so I could do a backup.  I didn't need a hammer
but the thought crossed my mind.  lol  Even tho I now have a 1GB network
card, it's still really slow.  It shows up as a 1GB connection on both
my Gentoo machine and the NAS machine.  This is a example of the speeds
I'm seeing.  Just snippets. 


277,193,507 100%   16.18MB/s    0:00:16
519,216,571 100%   18.86MB/s    0:00:26
738,078,565 100%   23.54MB/s    0:00:29


As you can see, the files sizes are large enough it should do better. 
When I use iftop, it shows it isn't doing anywhere near the speed it
should, maybe 1/4th or so.  I'd expect at least double or triple that
speed.  In all honesty, I'd think the hard drive would be the limiting
factor.  Even on my Gentoo rig I only get about 50 to 60MBs/sec for
encrypted drives.  I think the encryption slows that down.  When copying
from a plain drive to a plain drive, I get 100MBs/sec or so. 

I can't figure out why it is so slow tho.  The NAS rig is a 4 core CPU
and 8GBs of memory.  It should have enough horsepower under the hood. 
Maybe it is something I'm not aware of.  It is a older rig so maybe it
isn't SATA's fastest version, maybe even the original or something.  I
can't find anything in lspci or dmesg so not real sure where to look on
BSD. 

Anyway, it's progress for now at least.  ;-)  At this rate, it'll be
done in about a week, maybe.  o_O

Dale

:-)  :-) 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3886 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3039 bytes --]

On Sunday, 18 December 2022 15:12:37 GMT Dale wrote:
> Mark Knecht wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 4:42 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com
> > <mailto:rdalek1967@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > <SNIP>
> > 
> > > My reasoning is simple, I'm already familiar with LVM and how to
> > 
> > manage it.  
> > <SNIP>
> > 
> > Take the machine, wipe it and build a NAS from scratch with Gentoo. If
> > all you want is an NFS mount that won't be difficult. Add an NFS
> > server, export your mount and you're done, right? Managing it over the
> > long term will be far more work than TrueNAS but you will be
> > comfortable with changing disks and adding network cards which
> > is important to you. Life is too short to deal with things you really
> > don't enjoy.
> > 
> > I would not suggest you look at Ubuntu Server because it's NGL. 10
> > minutes to install, 3 minutes to figure out how to add the NFS server.
> > However it's a different package manager and truly not as nice as
> > emerge/portage so you probably won't like that part of NGL either. I
> > truly don't like apt, but it works if I stay in my lane so I've
> > learned to do that, the advantage being I've never had to build a
> > package from scratch and I've never in 5 or 6 years had an update fail.
> > 
> > Wipe the machine. You'll be happier.
> > 
> > Best wishes,
> > Mark
> 
> Well, I finally got it so I could do a backup.  I didn't need a hammer
> but the thought crossed my mind.  lol  Even tho I now have a 1GB network
> card, it's still really slow.  It shows up as a 1GB connection on both
> my Gentoo machine and the NAS machine.  This is a example of the speeds
> I'm seeing.  Just snippets. 
> 
> 
> 277,193,507 100%   16.18MB/s    0:00:16
> 519,216,571 100%   18.86MB/s    0:00:26
> 738,078,565 100%   23.54MB/s    0:00:29
> 
> 
> As you can see, the files sizes are large enough it should do better. 
> When I use iftop, it shows it isn't doing anywhere near the speed it
> should, maybe 1/4th or so.  I'd expect at least double or triple that
> speed.  In all honesty, I'd think the hard drive would be the limiting
> factor.  Even on my Gentoo rig I only get about 50 to 60MBs/sec for
> encrypted drives.  I think the encryption slows that down.  When copying
> from a plain drive to a plain drive, I get 100MBs/sec or so. 
> 
> I can't figure out why it is so slow tho.  The NAS rig is a 4 core CPU
> and 8GBs of memory.  It should have enough horsepower under the hood. 
> Maybe it is something I'm not aware of.  It is a older rig so maybe it
> isn't SATA's fastest version, maybe even the original or something.  I
> can't find anything in lspci or dmesg so not real sure where to look on
> BSD. 
> 
> Anyway, it's progress for now at least.  ;-)  At this rate, it'll be
> done in about a week, maybe.  o_O
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-) 

Has it auto-negotiated a full-duplex connection at 1Gbps?  Run ifconfig and 
check the output, it should say something like:

media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT <full-duplex>)

If not, then you may need to set this up manually.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3681 bytes --]

Michael wrote:
> On Sunday, 18 December 2022 15:12:37 GMT Dale wrote:
>> Mark Knecht wrote:
>>> On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 4:42 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:rdalek1967@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> <SNIP>
>>>
>>>> My reasoning is simple, I'm already familiar with LVM and how to
>>> manage it.  
>>> <SNIP>
>>>
>>> Take the machine, wipe it and build a NAS from scratch with Gentoo. If
>>> all you want is an NFS mount that won't be difficult. Add an NFS
>>> server, export your mount and you're done, right? Managing it over the
>>> long term will be far more work than TrueNAS but you will be
>>> comfortable with changing disks and adding network cards which
>>> is important to you. Life is too short to deal with things you really
>>> don't enjoy.
>>>
>>> I would not suggest you look at Ubuntu Server because it's NGL. 10
>>> minutes to install, 3 minutes to figure out how to add the NFS server.
>>> However it's a different package manager and truly not as nice as
>>> emerge/portage so you probably won't like that part of NGL either. I
>>> truly don't like apt, but it works if I stay in my lane so I've
>>> learned to do that, the advantage being I've never had to build a
>>> package from scratch and I've never in 5 or 6 years had an update fail.
>>>
>>> Wipe the machine. You'll be happier.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>> Mark
>> Well, I finally got it so I could do a backup.  I didn't need a hammer
>> but the thought crossed my mind.  lol  Even tho I now have a 1GB network
>> card, it's still really slow.  It shows up as a 1GB connection on both
>> my Gentoo machine and the NAS machine.  This is a example of the speeds
>> I'm seeing.  Just snippets. 
>>
>>
>> 277,193,507 100%   16.18MB/s    0:00:16
>> 519,216,571 100%   18.86MB/s    0:00:26
>> 738,078,565 100%   23.54MB/s    0:00:29
>>
>>
>> As you can see, the files sizes are large enough it should do better. 
>> When I use iftop, it shows it isn't doing anywhere near the speed it
>> should, maybe 1/4th or so.  I'd expect at least double or triple that
>> speed.  In all honesty, I'd think the hard drive would be the limiting
>> factor.  Even on my Gentoo rig I only get about 50 to 60MBs/sec for
>> encrypted drives.  I think the encryption slows that down.  When copying
>> from a plain drive to a plain drive, I get 100MBs/sec or so. 
>>
>> I can't figure out why it is so slow tho.  The NAS rig is a 4 core CPU
>> and 8GBs of memory.  It should have enough horsepower under the hood. 
>> Maybe it is something I'm not aware of.  It is a older rig so maybe it
>> isn't SATA's fastest version, maybe even the original or something.  I
>> can't find anything in lspci or dmesg so not real sure where to look on
>> BSD. 
>>
>> Anyway, it's progress for now at least.  ;-)  At this rate, it'll be
>> done in about a week, maybe.  o_O
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)  :-) 
> Has it auto-negotiated a full-duplex connection at 1Gbps?  Run ifconfig and 
> check the output, it should say something like:
>
> media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT <full-duplex>)
>
> If not, then you may need to set this up manually.

Mine says that here too. 


media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT <full-duplex>)


You know, it's not that easy to copy that from a console on BSD.  It was
kind enough to give me a hint on how tho.  ;-) 

I was pretty sure it was at full speed.  In iftop it showed it was a 1GB
connection, just not using much of it. 

I suspect it has something to do with this being a older system.  I
wouldn't be surprised if the SATA was a older and slower version.  I
guess I could google it. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Mark Knecht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 533 bytes --]

On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 11:39 AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
<SNIP>
>
> I suspect it has something to do with this being a older system.  I
> wouldn't be surprised if the SATA was a older and slower version.  I
> guess I could google it.
>
You need to study your specs. Even the first version of SATA, SATA 1,
was capable of 150MB/S. SATA2 does 300MB/S. This is unlikely IMO
to be due to SATA specs.

Have you run iperf yet as I suggested? It will easily tell you what the
network performance is and takes 5 seconds in NGL.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 737 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1529 bytes --]

Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 11:39 AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com
> <mailto:rdalek1967@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> <SNIP>
> >
> > I suspect it has something to do with this being a older system.  I
> > wouldn't be surprised if the SATA was a older and slower version.  I
> > guess I could google it.
> >
> You need to study your specs. Even the first version of SATA, SATA 1,
> was capable of 150MB/S. SATA2 does 300MB/S. This is unlikely IMO
> to be due to SATA specs. 
>
> Have you run iperf yet as I suggested? It will easily tell you what the 
> network performance is and takes 5 seconds in NGL.

I ran it but it never returned anything.  I let it sit for at least a
minute but it just sat there.  I don't have that command on my Gentoo
rig.  This is what it did on the NAS box.


root@truenas[~]# iperf -s
------------------------------------------------------------
Server listening on TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 64.0 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------


And nothing.  Several minutes later, still nothing.  And it continues to
sit there.  I don't think it is working.  :/

Still, odds are, whatever it is, I'm not likely going to be able to
change it.  That poor old CPU just may not have the needed instruction
set to be really fast for this.  Maybe a different encryption would be
better.  I dunno.  It's temporary anyway. 

And still nothing.  It's been sitting there since I read the last
message.  Still, nothing. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2574 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Mark Knecht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1074 bytes --]

On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 12:20 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
> root@truenas[~]# iperf -s
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Server listening on TCP port 5001
> TCP window size: 64.0 KByte (default)
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> And nothing.  Several minutes later, still nothing.  And it continues to
sit there.  I don't think it is working.  :/
>
> Still, odds are, whatever it is, I'm not likely going to be able to
change it.  That poor old CPU just may not have the needed instruction set
to be really fast for this.  Maybe a different encryption would be better.
I dunno.  It's temporary anyway.
>
> And still nothing.  It's been sitting there since I read the last
message.  Still, nothing.
>
Sadly, you didn't read all of my instructions or apparently read the man
page or help file

All you've done is start the server which listens for a connection.

Now go to your Gentoo Land machine that you want to backup and execute

iperf -c IP.ADDR.OF.SERVER

Wait 10 seconds and hit ctrl-C

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1388 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1466 bytes --]

Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 12:20 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com
> <mailto:rdalek1967@gmail.com>> wrote:
> <SNIP>
> > root@truenas[~]# iperf -s
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > Server listening on TCP port 5001
> > TCP window size: 64.0 KByte (default)
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > And nothing.  Several minutes later, still nothing.  And it
> continues to sit there.  I don't think it is working.  :/
> >
> > Still, odds are, whatever it is, I'm not likely going to be able to
> change it.  That poor old CPU just may not have the needed instruction
> set to be really fast for this.  Maybe a different encryption would be
> better.  I dunno.  It's temporary anyway.
> >
> > And still nothing.  It's been sitting there since I read the last
> message.  Still, nothing.
> >
> Sadly, you didn't read all of my instructions or apparently read the
> man page or help file
>
> All you've done is start the server which listens for a connection.
>
> Now go to your Gentoo Land machine that you want to backup and execute
>
> iperf -c IP.ADDR.OF.SERVER
>
> Wait 10 seconds and hit ctrl-C


Oh, I read that but didn't get that one worked with the other.  Ooops. 
Thing is, I don't have the second command on my Gentoo install.  :/  It
sort of grumbles about that.  May look into that later.  Got other
things in the air right now. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2609 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[ralfconn]

On 12/18/22 23:08, Dale wrote:
> Mark Knecht wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 12:20 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>> > root@truenas[~]# iperf -s
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Server listening on TCP port 5001
>> > TCP window size: 64.0 KByte (default)
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >
>> > And nothing.  Several minutes later, still nothing.  And it 
>> continues to sit there.  I don't think it is working.  :/
>> >
>> > Still, odds are, whatever it is, I'm not likely going to be able to 
>> change it.  That poor old CPU just may not have the needed 
>> instruction set to be really fast for this.  Maybe a different 
>> encryption would be better.  I dunno.  It's temporary anyway.
>> >
>> > And still nothing.  It's been sitting there since I read the last 
>> message.  Still, nothing.
>> >
>> Sadly, you didn't read all of my instructions or apparently read the 
>> man page or help file
>>
>> All you've done is start the server which listens for a connection.
>>
>> Now go to your Gentoo Land machine that you want to backup and execute
>>
>> iperf -c IP.ADDR.OF.SERVER
>>
>> Wait 10 seconds and hit ctrl-C
>
>
> Oh, I read that but didn't get that one worked with the other. Ooops.  
> Thing is, I don't have the second command on my Gentoo install.  :/  
> It sort of grumbles about that.  May look into that later.  Got other 
> things in the air right now.
>
> Dale
$ eix iperf
[I] net-misc/iperf
      Available versions:
      (2)    2.0.14a **2.9999*l
      (3)    3.12
        {debug ipv6 sctp threads}
      Installed versions:  3.12(3)(10:20:30 AM 10/08/2022)(-sctp)
      Homepage:            https://github.com/esnet/iperf
      Description:         A TCP, UDP, and SCTP network bandwidth 
measurement tool

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Frank Steinmetzger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 996 bytes --]

Am Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 12:38:45PM -0600 schrieb Dale:

> I suspect it has something to do with this being a older system.

Very likely. :)

> I wouldn't be surprised if the SATA was a older and slower version.

I hate to repeat myself, but no. Here are the speeds of SATA:

Generation   Year   Gross bandwidth   Net bandwidth
---------------------------------------------------------
SATA 1       2003     1.5 Gbps        1.2 Gbps (150 MB/s)
SATA 2       2004     3.0 Gbps        2.4 Gbps (300 MB/s)
SATA 3       2008     6.0 Gbps        4.8 Gbps (600 MB/s)

Even SATA 1 is faster than your new ethernet card.

> I guess I could google it. 

My source (as most often): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SATA
If you know the name of a technical thing, the quickest way to concise
facts is wikipedia.

-- 
Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.

The stupid keep tidy.  The genius controls chaos.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Frank Steinmetzger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3951 bytes --]

Am Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 09:12:37AM -0600 schrieb Dale:

> > On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 4:42 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com
> > <mailto:rdalek1967@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > <SNIP>
> > >
> > > My reasoning is simple, I'm already familiar with LVM and how to
> > manage it.  
> > <SNIP>
> > […]
> > Wipe the machine. You'll be happier.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Mark
>
> Well, I finally got it so I could do a backup.  I didn't need a hammer
> but the thought crossed my mind.  lol  Even tho I now have a 1GB network
> card, it's still really slow.  It shows up as a 1GB connection on both
> my Gentoo machine and the NAS machine.  This is a example of the speeds
> I'm seeing.  Just snippets. 
> 
> 
> 277,193,507 100%   16.18MB/s    0:00:16
> 519,216,571 100%   18.86MB/s    0:00:26
> 738,078,565 100%   23.54MB/s    0:00:29
> 
> 
> As you can see, the files sizes are large enough it should do better. 

Gbit nets at around 116..117 MB/s.

> When I use iftop, it shows it isn't doing anywhere near the speed it
> should, maybe 1/4th or so.  I'd expect at least double or triple that
> speed.  In all honesty, I'd think the hard drive would be the limiting
> factor.  Even on my Gentoo rig I only get about 50 to 60MBs/sec for
> encrypted drives.  I think the encryption slows that down.  When copying
> from a plain drive to a plain drive, I get 100MBs/sec or so. 
>
> I can't figure out why it is so slow tho.  The NAS rig is a 4 core CPU
> and 8GBs of memory.

OK, so you already noticed that encryption slows you down. This won’t happen
with a CPU that has AES instructions (well, and if the encryption you chose
actually uses AES, and not something else like Blowfish). So I guess your
CPU is too old, given your earlier descriptions.

When I built my NAS in November 2016, I installed a Celeron G1840 at first.
A very affordable (33 €) and frugal CPU (2 cores, 53 W, which were never
actually drawn). I knew it didn’t have AES back then (Intel removed that
limit from Celerons in architectures after Haswell), but from experiments I
knew it would achieve around 150..160 MB/s with LUKS, which was enough for
Gbit ethernet. But not for scrubs, when all HDDs were worked in parallel. So
after a year I did an upgrade after all and bought the smallest and cheapest
CPU that had AES, an i3-41xx.

> It should have enough horsepower under the hood. 
> Maybe it is something I'm not aware of.  It is a older rig so maybe it
> isn't SATA's fastest version, maybe even the original or something.  I

SATA 2 is 3 Gbit/s, so still not saturated by a single HDD.

Network transfers are single-core work. If it is really such an old machine,
I guess the CPU is the bottleneck again. Do you transfer via ssh? If so, use
something else that doesn’t encrypt the transport stream. When I am bound by
CPU in such cases (like with my ancient netbook with an Atom N450), and I
don’t want to set up a file server (that is nowhere near as flexible as ssh
anyways), I use netcat:

On the receiving end, start a netcat listener and extract from it:
nc -l -p $Portnumber | tar xf -
The portnumber must be any number above 1024, if you’re not root.

And on the sender, pack all your stuff into a tar (uncompressed!, since
videos aren’t compressible further and it will bog down the CPU again) and
pipe it to the receiver:
tar cf - * | nc $Destination_IP $Portnumber

Once the client is done, press Ctrl+C on the receiver.

Or maybe use rsync with the rsync-protocol instead of ssh. That’ll be more
flexible, because the tar-and-nc method doesn’t know about existing files on
the receiving end. (But I’ve never tested that approach.)

-- 
Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.

You sould borrow money only from pessimists, because they don’t expect it back.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> Am Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 09:12:37AM -0600 schrieb Dale:
>
>>> On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 4:42 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:rdalek1967@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> <SNIP>
>>>> My reasoning is simple, I'm already familiar with LVM and how to
>>> manage it.  
>>> <SNIP>
>>> […]
>>> Wipe the machine. You'll be happier.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>> Mark
>> Well, I finally got it so I could do a backup.  I didn't need a hammer
>> but the thought crossed my mind.  lol  Even tho I now have a 1GB network
>> card, it's still really slow.  It shows up as a 1GB connection on both
>> my Gentoo machine and the NAS machine.  This is a example of the speeds
>> I'm seeing.  Just snippets. 
>>
>>
>> 277,193,507 100%   16.18MB/s    0:00:16
>> 519,216,571 100%   18.86MB/s    0:00:26
>> 738,078,565 100%   23.54MB/s    0:00:29
>>
>>
>> As you can see, the files sizes are large enough it should do better. 
> Gbit nets at around 116..117 MB/s.
>
>> When I use iftop, it shows it isn't doing anywhere near the speed it
>> should, maybe 1/4th or so.  I'd expect at least double or triple that
>> speed.  In all honesty, I'd think the hard drive would be the limiting
>> factor.  Even on my Gentoo rig I only get about 50 to 60MBs/sec for
>> encrypted drives.  I think the encryption slows that down.  When copying
>> from a plain drive to a plain drive, I get 100MBs/sec or so. 
>>
>> I can't figure out why it is so slow tho.  The NAS rig is a 4 core CPU
>> and 8GBs of memory.
> OK, so you already noticed that encryption slows you down. This won’t happen
> with a CPU that has AES instructions (well, and if the encryption you chose
> actually uses AES, and not something else like Blowfish). So I guess your
> CPU is too old, given your earlier descriptions.
>
> When I built my NAS in November 2016, I installed a Celeron G1840 at first.
> A very affordable (33 €) and frugal CPU (2 cores, 53 W, which were never
> actually drawn). I knew it didn’t have AES back then (Intel removed that
> limit from Celerons in architectures after Haswell), but from experiments I
> knew it would achieve around 150..160 MB/s with LUKS, which was enough for
> Gbit ethernet. But not for scrubs, when all HDDs were worked in parallel. So
> after a year I did an upgrade after all and bought the smallest and cheapest
> CPU that had AES, an i3-41xx.
>
>> It should have enough horsepower under the hood. 
>> Maybe it is something I'm not aware of.  It is a older rig so maybe it
>> isn't SATA's fastest version, maybe even the original or something.  I
> SATA 2 is 3 Gbit/s, so still not saturated by a single HDD.

This could be a SATA 1.  I don't recall the speed of that.  Thing is,
when I go to a console and use htop, it shows the CPU is maxed out most
of the time.  It kinda gets busy for a good bit, idle for a short time
then back to close to 100%.  It has plenty of memory even tho it is
caching a lot in memory.  It shows less than 1GB actually used by the
system itself, not including cache tho.  With that info, I suspect the
CPU is the bottleneck.  It's the only thing that is showing heavy
usage.  This may have nothing to do with SATA.  I suspect it is the
encryption that really hits the CPU hard.  Also, the CPU temp is good
too.  I replaced the stock cooler with a larger model.  I think it is
running around 100F or so. I don't think temps are a issue. 


>
> Network transfers are single-core work. If it is really such an old machine,
> I guess the CPU is the bottleneck again. Do you transfer via ssh? If so, use
> something else that doesn’t encrypt the transport stream. When I am bound by
> CPU in such cases (like with my ancient netbook with an Atom N450), and I
> don’t want to set up a file server (that is nowhere near as flexible as ssh
> anyways), I use netcat:
>
> On the receiving end, start a netcat listener and extract from it:
> nc -l -p $Portnumber | tar xf -
> The portnumber must be any number above 1024, if you’re not root.
>
> And on the sender, pack all your stuff into a tar (uncompressed!, since
> videos aren’t compressible further and it will bog down the CPU again) and
> pipe it to the receiver:
> tar cf - * | nc $Destination_IP $Portnumber
>
> Once the client is done, press Ctrl+C on the receiver.
>
> Or maybe use rsync with the rsync-protocol instead of ssh. That’ll be more
> flexible, because the tar-and-nc method doesn’t know about existing files on
> the receiving end. (But I’ve never tested that approach.)
>

Since this is local, I just use rsync to do my backups.  I did have to
change the options a bit.  It seems TrueNAS doesn't like some of the
permissions or something.  Anyway, I found a way that works.  As I
mentioned above, I think this is a CPU issue.  It does show that I need
to see how encryption will work with the CPU on a Raspberry Pi tho. 
Maybe the newer ones will have the needed support and not cause problems. 

While at it, the dashboard CPU info doesn't really show the CPU maxing
out as well as htop does.  If someone thinks their TrueNAS box is slow,
may want to use htop or similar tools to check things. The memory is
pretty accurate tho.  Thing about htop, it shows how busy each core is
and that is usually most helpful.  Some processes only use one core,
even tho some have left the single core CPUs behind long ago.  lol 

This is gonna take a while.  :/

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Wol]

On 18/12/2022 18:59, Dale wrote:
> Since this is local, I just use rsync to do my backups.  I did have to
> change the options a bit.  It seems TrueNAS doesn't like some of the
> permissions or something.

Are you running the rsync daemon on the NAS? I'm probably teaching 
grandma to suck eggs, but that massively reduces the need for network 
traffic.

Cheers,
Wol

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

Wol wrote:
> On 18/12/2022 18:59, Dale wrote:
>> Since this is local, I just use rsync to do my backups.  I did have to
>> change the options a bit.  It seems TrueNAS doesn't like some of the
>> permissions or something.
>
> Are you running the rsync daemon on the NAS? I'm probably teaching
> grandma to suck eggs, but that massively reduces the need for network
> traffic.
>
> Cheers,
> Wol
>
>


I mount the NAS on my Gentoo rig.  I mount it under /mnt.  Then I run
rsync and copy from the source to the mount point for the NAS.  I may
could go the other way but never thought about doing it that way.  Kinda
sounds backwards to me but I dunno. ;-)

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Wols Lists]

On 18/12/2022 22:11, Dale wrote:
> Wol wrote:
>> On 18/12/2022 18:59, Dale wrote:
>>> Since this is local, I just use rsync to do my backups.  I did have to
>>> change the options a bit.  It seems TrueNAS doesn't like some of the
>>> permissions or something.
>>
>> Are you running the rsync daemon on the NAS? I'm probably teaching
>> grandma to suck eggs, but that massively reduces the need for network
>> traffic.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Wol
>>
>>
> 
> 
> I mount the NAS on my Gentoo rig.  I mount it under /mnt.  Then I run
> rsync and copy from the source to the mount point for the NAS.  I may
> could go the other way but never thought about doing it that way.  Kinda
> sounds backwards to me but I dunno. ;-)
> 
Sounds to me like you're doing it all wrong either way ...

What is *supposed* to happen is that you have the daemon running on one 
machine and the client on the other - doesn't matter which.

Then the client tells the daemon what files are to be copied, THE TWO 
COMPARE CHECKSUMS, and only the stuff that fails the checksum is copied. 
So if you're doing an incremental backup, network usage and writes are 
kept to a minimum.

I tell people to an in-place backup if they're running on a snapshot 
setup, because again it only writes stuff that has actually changed.

Cheers,
Wol

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

Wols Lists wrote:
> On 18/12/2022 22:11, Dale wrote:
>> Wol wrote:
>>> On 18/12/2022 18:59, Dale wrote:
>>>> Since this is local, I just use rsync to do my backups.  I did have to
>>>> change the options a bit.  It seems TrueNAS doesn't like some of the
>>>> permissions or something.
>>>
>>> Are you running the rsync daemon on the NAS? I'm probably teaching
>>> grandma to suck eggs, but that massively reduces the need for network
>>> traffic.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Wol
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I mount the NAS on my Gentoo rig.  I mount it under /mnt.  Then I run
>> rsync and copy from the source to the mount point for the NAS.  I may
>> could go the other way but never thought about doing it that way.  Kinda
>> sounds backwards to me but I dunno. ;-)
>>
> Sounds to me like you're doing it all wrong either way ...
>
> What is *supposed* to happen is that you have the daemon running on
> one machine and the client on the other - doesn't matter which.
>
> Then the client tells the daemon what files are to be copied, THE TWO
> COMPARE CHECKSUMS, and only the stuff that fails the checksum is
> copied. So if you're doing an incremental backup, network usage and
> writes are kept to a minimum.
>
> I tell people to an in-place backup if they're running on a snapshot
> setup, because again it only writes stuff that has actually changed.
>
> Cheers,
> Wol
>
>


Do you have a link to the proper way to do it?  I don't copy to a
different machine often so my current method may be the problem.  Maybe
the way you mention will work much better, even a little better would be
nice. ;-)

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[David Rosenbaum]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1783 bytes --]

Need link

Dave

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 1:52 AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:

> Wols Lists wrote:
> > On 18/12/2022 22:11, Dale wrote:
> >> Wol wrote:
> >>> On 18/12/2022 18:59, Dale wrote:
> >>>> Since this is local, I just use rsync to do my backups.  I did have to
> >>>> change the options a bit.  It seems TrueNAS doesn't like some of the
> >>>> permissions or something.
> >>>
> >>> Are you running the rsync daemon on the NAS? I'm probably teaching
> >>> grandma to suck eggs, but that massively reduces the need for network
> >>> traffic.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Wol
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> I mount the NAS on my Gentoo rig.  I mount it under /mnt.  Then I run
> >> rsync and copy from the source to the mount point for the NAS.  I may
> >> could go the other way but never thought about doing it that way.  Kinda
> >> sounds backwards to me but I dunno. ;-)
> >>
> > Sounds to me like you're doing it all wrong either way ...
> >
> > What is *supposed* to happen is that you have the daemon running on
> > one machine and the client on the other - doesn't matter which.
> >
> > Then the client tells the daemon what files are to be copied, THE TWO
> > COMPARE CHECKSUMS, and only the stuff that fails the checksum is
> > copied. So if you're doing an incremental backup, network usage and
> > writes are kept to a minimum.
> >
> > I tell people to an in-place backup if they're running on a snapshot
> > setup, because again it only writes stuff that has actually changed.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Wol
> >
> >
>
>
> Do you have a link to the proper way to do it?  I don't copy to a
> different machine often so my current method may be the problem.  Maybe
> the way you mention will work much better, even a little better would be
> nice. ;-)
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2518 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[David Rosenbaum]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 464 bytes --]

Dave

On Sun, Dec 18, 2022, 2:54 PM Wol <antlists@youngman.org.uk> wrote:

> On 18/12/2022 18:59, Dale wrote:
> > Since this is local, I just use rsync to do my backups.  I did have to
> > change the options a bit.  It seems TrueNAS doesn't like some of the
> > permissions or something.
>
> Are you running the rsync daemon on the NAS? I'm probably teaching
> grandma to suck eggs, but that massively reduces the need for network
> traffic.
>
> Cheers,
> Wol
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 840 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Mark Knecht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2362 bytes --]

On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 8:13 AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well, I finally got it so I could do a backup.  I didn't need a hammer
but the thought crossed my mind.  lol  Even tho I now have a 1GB network
card, it's still really slow.  It shows up as a 1GB connection on both my
Gentoo machine and the NAS machine.  This is a example of the speeds I'm
seeing.  Just snippets.
>
>
> 277,193,507 100%   16.18MB/s    0:00:16
> 519,216,571 100%   18.86MB/s    0:00:26
> 738,078,565 100%   23.54MB/s    0:00:29
>
>
> As you can see, the files sizes are large enough it should do better.
When I use iftop, it shows it isn't doing anywhere near the speed it
should, maybe 1/4th or so.  I'd expect at least double or triple that
speed.  In all honesty, I'd think the hard drive would be the limiting
factor.  Even on my Gentoo rig I only get about 50 to 60MBs/sec for
encrypted drives.  I think the encryption slows that down.  When copying
from a plain drive to a plain drive, I get 100MBs/sec or so.
>
> I can't figure out why it is so slow tho.  The NAS rig is a 4 core CPU
and 8GBs of memory.  It should have enough horsepower under the hood.
Maybe it is something I'm not aware of.  It is a older rig so maybe it
isn't SATA's fastest version, maybe even the original or something.  I
can't find anything in lspci or dmesg so not real sure where to look on
BSD.
>
> Anyway, it's progress for now at least.  ;-)  At this rate, it'll be done
in about a week, maybe.  o_O
>
> Dale
>

To what end Dale? Aren't you painting yourself into a corner with a system
you don't really want to run? Wipe the machine and start over from scratch
with Gentoo.

From my vantage point you don't provide enough information for me to make
an educated guess.

1) Is your data coming off the host machine able to transfer to other
machines at 1Gb/S type speeds?

2) Can data coming off of your NAS transfer to other machines at 1G/S type
speeds?

3) How are the two machines connected? If they are going through a router
or hub, do you know that hub doesn't limit throughput?

4) Is anything else happening on the network? Video flowing around while
people are watching TV or something?

5) CPU horsepower isn't the only potential bottleneck. Are your disks in
the NAS operating slowly? Are you running out of memory?

   Have you considered running something like iperf?

Mark

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2875 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Mark Knecht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3545 bytes --]

On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 8:29 AM Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 8:13 AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Well, I finally got it so I could do a backup.  I didn't need a hammer
but the thought crossed my mind.  lol  Even tho I now have a 1GB network
card, it's still really slow.  It shows up as a 1GB connection on both my
Gentoo machine and the NAS machine.  This is a example of the speeds I'm
seeing.  Just snippets.
> >
> >
> > 277,193,507 100%   16.18MB/s    0:00:16
> > 519,216,571 100%   18.86MB/s    0:00:26
> > 738,078,565 100%   23.54MB/s    0:00:29
> >
> >
> > As you can see, the files sizes are large enough it should do better.
When I use iftop, it shows it isn't doing anywhere near the speed it
should, maybe 1/4th or so.  I'd expect at least double or triple that
speed.  In all honesty, I'd think the hard drive would be the limiting
factor.  Even on my Gentoo rig I only get about 50 to 60MBs/sec for
encrypted drives.  I think the encryption slows that down.  When copying
from a plain drive to a plain drive, I get 100MBs/sec or so.
> >
> > I can't figure out why it is so slow tho.  The NAS rig is a 4 core CPU
and 8GBs of memory.  It should have enough horsepower under the hood.
Maybe it is something I'm not aware of.  It is a older rig so maybe it
isn't SATA's fastest version, maybe even the original or something.  I
can't find anything in lspci or dmesg so not real sure where to look on BSD.
> >
> > Anyway, it's progress for now at least.  ;-)  At this rate, it'll be
done in about a week, maybe.  o_O
> >
> > Dale
> >
>
> To what end Dale? Aren't you painting yourself into a corner with a
system you don't really want to run? Wipe the machine and start over from
scratch with Gentoo.
>
> From my vantage point you don't provide enough information for me to make
an educated guess.
>
> 1) Is your data coming off the host machine able to transfer to other
machines at 1Gb/S type speeds?
>
> 2) Can data coming off of your NAS transfer to other machines at 1G/S
type speeds?
>
> 3) How are the two machines connected? If they are going through a router
or hub, do you know that hub doesn't limit throughput?
>
> 4) Is anything else happening on the network? Video flowing around while
people are watching TV or something?
>
> 5) CPU horsepower isn't the only potential bottleneck. Are your disks in
the NAS operating slowly? Are you running out of memory?
>
>    Have you considered running something like iperf?
>
> Mark

Run iperf -s in the TrueNAS shell service in the GUI

From you Gentoo Land box run

mark@science2:~$ iperf -c truenas1
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to truenas1, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 85.0 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[  1] local 192.168.86.43 port 50710 connected with 192.168.86.92 port 5001
[ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
[  1] 0.0000-10.0418 sec  1.07 GBytes   918 Mbits/sec
mark@science2:~$

Then immediately wipe the machine and start over with Gentoo, or at least
start over with the Linux version of TrueNAS.

I would have used the Linux version if it had existed when I built the
machine. I don't love BSD, but not because it doesn't work but because
certain CLI tools have slightly different options.

Wipe the machine and start over with Gentoo from scratch...
Wipe the machine and start over with Gentoo from scratch...
Humm, I think you should...
Wipe the machine and start over with Gentoo from scratch...

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4281 bytes --]

Living in NGL: was: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Jack]

On 12/18/22 10:38, Mark Knecht wrote:
> Wipe the machine and start over with Gentoo from scratch...
> Wipe the machine and start over with Gentoo from scratch...
> Humm, I think you should...
> Wipe the machine and start over with Gentoo from scratch...

First there was Linux from Scratch.

Next came Beyond Linux from Scratch.

Then there was Gentoo.

Now, the latest, greatest installment: Gentoo from Scratch.

Re: Living in NGL: was: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Mark Knecht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1137 bytes --]

On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 8:49 AM Jack <ostroffjh@users.sourceforge.net>
wrote:
>
> On 12/18/22 10:38, Mark Knecht wrote:
> > Wipe the machine and start over with Gentoo from scratch...
> > Wipe the machine and start over with Gentoo from scratch...
> > Humm, I think you should...
> > Wipe the machine and start over with Gentoo from scratch...
>
> First there was Linux from Scratch.
>
> Next came Beyond Linux from Scratch.
>
> Then there was Gentoo.
>
> Now, the latest, greatest installment: Gentoo from Scratch.
>

Gawd, that's funny! Thanks for making me smile, assuming I found what
you're talking about:

https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_ebuild_tree_from_scratch

Just what every Gentoo user needs. More management!

I really have fallen off the deep end thinking computers are just tools to
get a job done. I'm ashamed of myself...

In the really early days of Gentoo circa 2003 when I started there was some
choice about regular Gentoo or a really low level install. I failed with
the low level one but soon learned that every package on my machine was
going to get rebuilt anyway so why bother?

:-( Sad Mark. I'm a putz...

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1572 bytes --]

Re: Living in NGL: was: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Jack]

On 2022.12.18 11:17, Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 8:49 AM Jack <ostroffjh@users.sourceforge.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 12/18/22 10:38, Mark Knecht wrote:
> > > Wipe the machine and start over with Gentoo from scratch...
> > > Wipe the machine and start over with Gentoo from scratch...
> > > Humm, I think you should...
> > > Wipe the machine and start over with Gentoo from scratch...
> >
> > First there was Linux from Scratch.
> >
> > Next came Beyond Linux from Scratch.
> >
> > Then there was Gentoo.
> >
> > Now, the latest, greatest installment: Gentoo from Scratch.
> >
> 
> Gawd, that's funny! Thanks for making me smile, assuming I found what
> you're talking about:
> 
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_ebuild_tree_from_scratch
I actually hadn't seen that, but it fits.
> 
> Just what every Gentoo user needs. More management!
> 
> I really have fallen off the deep end thinking computers are just  
> tools to get a job done. I'm ashamed of myself...
I've long said that many folks have computers to play games, but for  
me, the computer IS the game.
> 
> In the really early days of Gentoo circa 2003 when I started there  
> was some choice about regular Gentoo or a really low level install. I  
> failed with the low level one but soon learned that every package on  
> my machine was going to get rebuilt anyway so why bother?
> 
> :-( Sad Mark. I'm a putz...
Jack

Re: Living in NGL: was: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2324 bytes --]

Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 8:49 AM Jack <ostroffjh@users.sourceforge.net
> <mailto:ostroffjh@users.sourceforge.net>> wrote:
> >
> > On 12/18/22 10:38, Mark Knecht wrote:
> > > Wipe the machine and start over with Gentoo from scratch...
> > > Wipe the machine and start over with Gentoo from scratch...
> > > Humm, I think you should...
> > > Wipe the machine and start over with Gentoo from scratch...
> >
> > First there was Linux from Scratch.
> >
> > Next came Beyond Linux from Scratch.
> >
> > Then there was Gentoo.
> >
> > Now, the latest, greatest installment: Gentoo from Scratch.
> >
>
> Gawd, that's funny! Thanks for making me smile, assuming I found what
> you're talking about:
>
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_ebuild_tree_from_scratch
>
> Just what every Gentoo user needs. More management!
>
> I really have fallen off the deep end thinking computers are just
> tools to get a job done. I'm ashamed of myself...
>
> In the really early days of Gentoo circa 2003 when I started there was
> some choice about regular Gentoo or a really low level install. I
> failed with the low level one but soon learned that every package on
> my machine was going to get rebuilt anyway so why bother?
>
> :-( Sad Mark. I'm a putz...

It is connected properly.  Everything I have is 1GB now.  When I got
fiber internet, I had to upgrade everything.  With the old DSL, well,
even a 10MB card would have worked.  lol 

See other reply that has more info.  I'm pretty sure it is the
encryption maxing out the CPU.  It's really the only thing that is
working hard.  Everything else seems to be doing more waiting than
anything. 

I just might find a simple distro that I can install on that thing. 
Honestly, I don't really care what is on it as long as it does what I
want and I can figure out how to make it work easily enough.  Still, I
wouldn't want Gentoo on a rig that slow.  I wouldn't have GUI stuff like
KDE, Firefox, libreoffice on it so that would save a lot of time but
still, even a headless machine would require some compile times.  Heck,
Ubuntu, Arch or any number of other distros would likely work just
fine.  Mostly, I need a better CPU.  If I encrypt anyway. 

This will work for the time being.  Now that I figured out how to make
it work.  ROFL

Dale

:-) 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3789 bytes --]

Re: Living in NGL: was: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Mark Knecht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 855 bytes --]

On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 12:08 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
> I just might find a simple distro that I can install on that thing.
Honestly, I don't really care what is on it as long as it does what I want
and I can figure out how to make it work easily enough.
<SNIP>

Consider Ubuntu Server. It's text only and will likely have everything you
need to start other than the NFS server which is easy enough to install.
ssh is on it by default,

You will need a monitor to install.

Update after install is probably two commands which is more or less
equivalent to emerge -DuN world but takes only a couple of minutes.

sudo apt update
sudo apt upgrade

There are lots of web pages that will tell you how to install and configure
the NFS server. It's not hard and only necessary if you actually want to
create mounts. Not necessary for rsync.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1125 bytes --]

Re: Living in NGL: was: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Frank Steinmetzger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 857 bytes --]

Am Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 01:07:43PM -0600 schrieb Dale:

> See other reply that has more info.  I'm pretty sure it is the
> encryption maxing out the CPU.

The most simple benchmark is dd: unlock the LUKS layer on your HDD. then
first read from the HDD directly and then from the LUKS device:

dd if=<path/to/raw/HDD> of=/dev/null bs=1M count=1000
dd if=<path/to/cryptdevice> of=/dev/null bs=1M count=1000

It will tell you the transfer rate in MB/s.

> Mostly, I need a better CPU.  If I encrypt anyway. 

Did you ever tell us the exact CPU you have in there? All I can remember is
it has 4 cores. And some AMD processor with a II in its name, but that was
you main rig, right?

-- 
Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.

It's not a bug, it's tradition!

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: Living in NGL: was: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 2:30 PM Frank Steinmetzger <Warp_7@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> Am Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 01:07:43PM -0600 schrieb Dale:
>
> > Mostly, I need a better CPU.  If I encrypt anyway.
>
> Did you ever tell us the exact CPU you have in there? All I can remember is
> it has 4 cores. And some AMD processor with a II in its name, but that was
> you main rig, right?

What encryption algorithm are you using?  You should see if this is
hardware-accelerated in the kernel for your CPU, or if not if there is
another strong algorithm which is.  Most newer CPUs will tend to have
hardware support for algorithms like AES, and the kernel will use
this.  This will greatly improve CPU performance.

I've run into this issue with zfs on Raspberry Pis.  ZFS does the
encryption internally, and the openzfs code didn't have support for
ARM hardware encryption the last time I checked (this could have
changed).  I found that dm-crypt works MUCH better on Pis as a result,
as the kernel does have ARM encryption hardware support.

Again, this all depends on the algorithm.  If you're using something
exotic odds are the hardware won't handle it natively.

-- 
Rich

Re: Living in NGL: was: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Mark Knecht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1793 bytes --]

On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 1:07 PM Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 2:30 PM Frank Steinmetzger <Warp_7@gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> > Am Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 01:07:43PM -0600 schrieb Dale:
> >
> > > Mostly, I need a better CPU.  If I encrypt anyway.
> >
> > Did you ever tell us the exact CPU you have in there? All I can
remember is
> > it has 4 cores. And some AMD processor with a II in its name, but that
was
> > you main rig, right?
>
> What encryption algorithm are you using?  You should see if this is
> hardware-accelerated in the kernel for your CPU, or if not if there is
> another strong algorithm which is.  Most newer CPUs will tend to have
> hardware support for algorithms like AES, and the kernel will use
> this.  This will greatly improve CPU performance.
>
> I've run into this issue with zfs on Raspberry Pis.  ZFS does the
> encryption internally, and the openzfs code didn't have support for
> ARM hardware encryption the last time I checked (this could have
> changed).  I found that dm-crypt works MUCH better on Pis as a result,
> as the kernel does have ARM encryption hardware support.
>
> Again, this all depends on the algorithm.  If you're using something
> exotic odds are the hardware won't handle it natively.
>
> --
> Rich

Great background info Rich. Thanks.

If Dale would supply us with the first few lines of the following command I
think it would help

mark@truenas1:~ $ sysctl hw
hw.machine: amd64
hw.model: Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-2120 CPU @ 3.30GHz
hw.ncpu: 4


Note that hw.ncpu isn't actually cores but rather threads. My
processor has just 2 cores.

I don't know how to get the CPU flags on FreeBSD nor
how to determine if encryption is hardware or software
based on TrueNAS. Given some time I might Google
that.

Cheers,
Mark

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2251 bytes --]

Re: Living in NGL: was: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Mark Knecht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 63 bytes --]

<SNIP>

sysctl hw

SNIP>

sudo dmidecode -t processor -t cache

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 112 bytes --]

Re: Living in NGL: was: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Frank Steinmetzger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 678 bytes --]

Am Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 01:30:45PM -0700 schrieb Mark Knecht:

> I don't know how to get the CPU flags on FreeBSD nor
> how to determine if encryption is hardware or software
> based on TrueNAS. Given some time I might Google
> that.

Wikipedia has lists of practically everything:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_processors
(We just need to know on which to click ;-) )

Another good source for such stuff is https://www.cpu-world.com/ .

-- 
Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.

Remember: now are the good old times
which you will be raving about in ten year’s time.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: Living in NGL: was: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> Am Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 01:07:43PM -0600 schrieb Dale:
>
>> See other reply that has more info.  I'm pretty sure it is the
>> encryption maxing out the CPU.
> The most simple benchmark is dd: unlock the LUKS layer on your HDD. then
> first read from the HDD directly and then from the LUKS device:
>
> dd if=<path/to/raw/HDD> of=/dev/null bs=1M count=1000
> dd if=<path/to/cryptdevice> of=/dev/null bs=1M count=1000
>
> It will tell you the transfer rate in MB/s.

One thing about it, the speed is likely what its going to be.  Whether
it is the encryption or whatever, it is what it is.  It did improve a
little with the 1GB network card but not a whole lot.

>> Mostly, I need a better CPU.  If I encrypt anyway. 
> Did you ever tell us the exact CPU you have in there? All I can remember is
> it has 4 cores. And some AMD processor with a II in its name, but that was
> you main rig, right?
>


It took some digging around but I found out it is a AMD Phenom 9750 quad
core.  It lists some extensions but I don't see any that are related to
encryption.  No AES or whatever for sure.  Unless I missed it.  I used
the command cpuid to get this info on BSD.

My main rig has a AMD FX-8350 Eight-Core Processor and 32GBs of memory. 
I'm thinking about a new rig eventually.  Rig is getting a little age on
it.  ;-) 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: Living in NGL: was: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Frank Steinmetzger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1372 bytes --]

Am Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 03:53:28PM -0600 schrieb Dale:

> > Did you ever tell us the exact CPU you have in there? All I can remember is
> > it has 4 cores. And some AMD processor with a II in its name, but that was
> > you main rig, right?
>
> It took some digging around but I found out it is a AMD Phenom 9750 quad
> core.

Great! That’s a model from 2008:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_Phenom_processors#%22Agena%22_(B2/B3,_65_nm,_Quad-core)

> It lists some extensions but I don't see any that are related to
> encryption.  No AES or whatever for sure.  Unless I missed it.  I used

The instruction set’s original proposal is about as young as your processor:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AES_instruction_set

> My main rig has a AMD FX-8350 Eight-Core Processor and 32GBs of memory. 
> I'm thinking about a new rig eventually.  Rig is getting a little age on
> it.  ;-) 

At least it has AES ;-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_FX_processors#Piledriver_Core_(Vishera,_32_nm)

I’ve been thinking about a new build for about a year now, aiming at a
power-efficient Ryzen 5700G. But I can’t let go of my trusty old (8 years)
i5-4590.

-- 
Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.
So this unvaccinated man comes in no bar ...

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: Living in NGL: was: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> Am Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 03:53:28PM -0600 schrieb Dale:
>
>>> Did you ever tell us the exact CPU you have in there? All I can remember is
>>> it has 4 cores. And some AMD processor with a II in its name, but that was
>>> you main rig, right?
>> It took some digging around but I found out it is a AMD Phenom 9750 quad
>> core.
> Great! That’s a model from 2008:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_Phenom_processors#%22Agena%22_(B2/B3,_65_nm,_Quad-core)
>
>>  It lists some extensions but I don't see any that are related to
>> encryption.  No AES or whatever for sure.  Unless I missed it.  I used
> The instruction set’s original proposal is about as young as your processor:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AES_instruction_set
>
>> My main rig has a AMD FX-8350 Eight-Core Processor and 32GBs of memory. 
>> I'm thinking about a new rig eventually.  Rig is getting a little age on
>> it.  ;-) 
> At least it has AES ;-)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_FX_processors#Piledriver_Core_(Vishera,_32_nm)
>
> I’ve been thinking about a new build for about a year now, aiming at a
> power-efficient Ryzen 5700G. But I can’t let go of my trusty old (8 years)
> i5-4590.
>


What worries me, a cap on the mobo deciding to take a long break and let
the stink out.  I checked when I bought it, they do use high dollar caps
but still, they age no matter how well they are made.  I do have a
backup mobo tho.  Current is a Gigabyte 970 but backup is a 870.  It
will even run the same kernel I think. 

I just need to make time to find out where I get the most bang for the
buck.  I read a few weeks ago that Intel is the most cost effective
now.  It used to be that power compared to money that AMD was a much
better deal.  Things have changed.  That's all for another day tho. 
Gotta save up some money.  Likely need about $1,000 or maybe even more. 
I could reuse some things tho.  Mobo, CPU and memory being the big
things I'd need to even start.  Maybe a power supply too.  My P/S is
only a few years old tho.  Fairly modern.  Plenty of watts. 

One of these days. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: Living in NGL: was: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 4:53 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It took some digging around but I found out it is a AMD Phenom 9750 quad
> core.

You might want to hook a Kill-a-watt to that and see how much power it
uses.  Those older AMD processors were really inefficient.

One thing I've come to appreciate with anything that runs 24x7 is to
consider the energy bill to run things.  That's why the bulk of my
storage is running on ARM SBCs.  Those things use almost no power when
idle, while even a modern amd64 system will often use more at idle
than an ARM will at full load.

Most of the newer CPUs are MUCH better in performance per watt as
well.  A server that uses just 50W 24x7 costs about $65/yr (and I have
pretty cheap electricity due to a 1yr contract - odds are it costs
quite a bit more for most of this list).  That's a fairly significant
amount of money so it can pay to optimize things, especially if you
replace what was a power-hungry performance CPU from 10 years ago with
a lower-end CPU from today that probably has double the performance
for 10% of the power draw.  Obviously if you want bleeding edge the
electricity bill won't cover the up-front costs, but lower end CPUs
are very cost-effective and efficient compared to really old systems
that people tend to use for these kinds of projects.

-- 
Rich

Re: Living in NGL: was: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 4:53 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It took some digging around but I found out it is a AMD Phenom 9750 quad
>> core.
> You might want to hook a Kill-a-watt to that and see how much power it
> uses.  Those older AMD processors were really inefficient.
>
> One thing I've come to appreciate with anything that runs 24x7 is to
> consider the energy bill to run things.  That's why the bulk of my
> storage is running on ARM SBCs.  Those things use almost no power when
> idle, while even a modern amd64 system will often use more at idle
> than an ARM will at full load.
>
> Most of the newer CPUs are MUCH better in performance per watt as
> well.  A server that uses just 50W 24x7 costs about $65/yr (and I have
> pretty cheap electricity due to a 1yr contract - odds are it costs
> quite a bit more for most of this list).  That's a fairly significant
> amount of money so it can pay to optimize things, especially if you
> replace what was a power-hungry performance CPU from 10 years ago with
> a lower-end CPU from today that probably has double the performance
> for 10% of the power draw.  Obviously if you want bleeding edge the
> electricity bill won't cover the up-front costs, but lower end CPUs
> are very cost-effective and efficient compared to really old systems
> that people tend to use for these kinds of projects.
>


My UPS has a power meter thing on it which is pretty close.  It shows a
little over 100 watts for rig and monitor to when running.  Given it is
winter time here, I don't mind the extra heat.  It's either the puter or
a heater.  Given the forecast, I'm considering a emerge -e world pretty
soon.  lol  This NAS box won't run 24/7 tho.  I'll run it when I update
backups then shut it down and maybe even move it to a out building. 
Once I build a Raspberry thingy, I may have one as a 24/7 NAS box and
take some load off my main rig.  That I would like to have more
efficiency with.  That's for later tho.  First, I want to build a small
one that will fit in my fire safe.  Of course, I still want a larger
safe so that maybe I can have a 6 bay NAS box.  I wish I could find a
commercial or bank type safe that is used.  If it isn't to heavy. 

I still remember my old AMD 2500+ single core rig.  That thing pulled
over 400 watts idle.  If I was compiling a lot and all the fans were
running plus hard drives were busy, it would pull even more, close to
500 watts or something.  It's been a while but I remember winters were
nice but summers made the A/C run a good bit longer.  Thing is, my
current rig is much faster, likely 10 times faster, and pulls less than
200 watts even if at full power plus I have a LOT more hard drives.  It
goes to show, you can't measure computer power by what it pulls from the
wall.  :-)

If I like these Raspberry things, may make a media box out of one.  I'd
like to have a remote tho.  ;-)

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: Living in NGL: was: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 12:11 AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If I like these Raspberry things, may make a media box out of one.  I'd
> like to have a remote tho.  ;-)

So, I've done that.  Honestly, these days a Roku is probably the
better option, or something like a Google Chromecast or the 47 other
variations on this them.  Keep in mind that low-powered devices like
ARM SBCs (or Rokus) are very picky about codecs.  If you're running
something like Plex the software will offload the transcoding to a
server when the codec isn't supported by the player, but if you're
doing something more DIY then you need to ensure your library conforms
to the specs or your player will just die.  Even 1080p can be pushing
it for software decoding on an ARM SBC, and forget 4k.  Heck, realtime
software transcoding 4k is pretty hard on most amd64 servers as well -
they will do it but it will use a significant amount of CPU just for
one stream.

These days I'm using Pis just for moosefs storage, and all the
compute-heavy stuff is on amd64.  For players I just use TV clients or
Rokus plus Plex server on amd64.  I don't really get any benefit out
of completely DIYing the client side and LIRC is a PITA.

-- 
Rich

Re: Living in NGL: was: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Wols Lists]

On 19/12/2022 12:00, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 12:11 AM Dale<rdalek1967@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> If I like these Raspberry things, may make a media box out of one.  I'd
>> like to have a remote tho.  😉

> So, I've done that.  Honestly, these days a Roku is probably the
> better option, or something like a Google Chromecast or the 47 other
> variations on this them.

Where do you put that 2TB drive on your Roku or Chromecast?

I'm thinking of building a media server, not to drive the TV, but to 
record and store. I thought that was what a media server was!

Cheers,
Wol

Re: Living in NGL: was: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 7:51 AM Wols Lists <antlists@youngman.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On 19/12/2022 12:00, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 12:11 AM Dale<rdalek1967@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> If I like these Raspberry things, may make a media box out of one.  I'd
> >> like to have a remote tho.  😉
>
> > So, I've done that.  Honestly, these days a Roku is probably the
> > better option, or something like a Google Chromecast or the 47 other
> > variations on this them.
>
> Where do you put that 2TB drive on your Roku or Chromecast?
>
> I'm thinking of building a media server, not to drive the TV, but to
> record and store. I thought that was what a media server was!

So, he said "media box," which I assumed meant the client that
attaches to the TV.  There are some canned solutions for media servers
- I think the NVidia Shield can run Plex server for example.  However,
in general server-side I'd go amd64.

My current solution is:
1. Moosefs for storage: amd64 container for the master, and ARM SBCs
for the chunkservers which host all the USB3 hard drives.  With a
modest number of them performance is very good, though certainly not
as good as Ceph or local storage.  (I do have moosefs in my overlay -
might try to get that into the main repo when I get a chance.)
2. Plex server in a container on amd64 (looking to migrate this to k8s
over the holiday).
3. Rokus or TV apps for the clients.

-- 
Rich

Re: Living in NGL: was: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Mark Knecht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1094 bytes --]

Hi Rich

On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 6:30 AM Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
<SNIP>
> My current solution is:
> 1. Moosefs for storage: amd64 container for the master, and ARM SBCs
> for the chunkservers which host all the USB3 hard drives.

I'm trying to understand the form factor of what you are mentioning above.
Presumably the chunkservers aren't sitting on a lab bench with USB
drives hanging off of them. Can you point me  toward and example of
what you are using?

I've been considering some of these new mini-computers that have
a couple of 2.5Gb/S Ethernet ports and 3 USB 3 ports but haven't
moved forward because I want it packaged in a single case.

Where does the master reside? In a container on your desktop
machine or is that another element on your network?

<SNIP>

> 2. Plex server in a container on amd64 (looking to migrate this to k8s
> over the holiday).

Why Kubernetes? Is the Plex server safer when not being used? How
long does it take to spin up an instance and do the TV apps understand
this operation? Or would it be up and running all the time?

Thanks,
Mark

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1468 bytes --]

Re: Living in NGL: was: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 11:43 AM Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 6:30 AM Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> <SNIP>
> > My current solution is:
> > 1. Moosefs for storage: amd64 container for the master, and ARM SBCs
> > for the chunkservers which host all the USB3 hard drives.
>
> I'm trying to understand the form factor of what you are mentioning above.
> Presumably the chunkservers aren't sitting on a lab bench with USB
> drives hanging off of them. Can you point me  toward and example of
> what you are using?

Well, a few basically are just sitting on a bench, but most are in
half-decent cases (I've found that Pi4s really benefit from a decent
case as they will thermal throttle otherwise).  I then have USB3 hard
drives attached.  I actually still have one RockPro64 with an LSI HBA
on a riser card but I'm going to be moving those drives to USB3-SATA
adapters because dealing with the kernel patches needed to fix the
broken PCIe driver is too much fuss, and the HBA uses a TON of power
which I didn't anticipate when I bought it (ugh, server gear).

Really at this point for anything new 2GB Pi4s are my preferred go-to
with Argon ONE v2 cases.  Then I just get USB3 hard drives on sale at
Best Buy for ~$15/TB if possible.  USB3 will handle a few hard drives
depending on how much throughput they're getting, but this setup is
more focused on capacity/cost than performance anyway.

The low memory requirement for the chunkservers is a big part of why I
went with MooseFS instead of Ceph.  The OSDs for Ceph recommend
something like 4GB per hard drive which adds up very fast.

The USB3 hard drives do end up strewn about a fair bit, but they have
their own enclosures anyway.  I just label them well.

>
> I've been considering some of these new mini-computers that have
> a couple of 2.5Gb/S Ethernet ports and 3 USB 3 ports but haven't
> moved forward because I want it packaged in a single case.

Yeah, better ethernet would definitely be on my wish list.  I'll
definitely take a look at the state of those the next time I add a
node.

> Where does the master reside? In a container on your desktop
> machine or is that another element on your network?

In an nspawn container on one of my servers.  It is pretty easy to set
up or migrate so it can go anywhere, but it does benefit from a bit
more CPU/RAM.  Running it in a container creates obvious dependency
challenges if I want to mount moosefs on the same server - that can be
solved with systemd dependencies, but it won't figure that out on its
own.

> > 2. Plex server in a container on amd64 (looking to migrate this to k8s
> > over the holiday).
>
> Why Kubernetes?

I run it 24x7.  This is half an exercise to finally learn and grok
k8s, and half an effort to just develop better container practices in
general.  Right now all my containers run in nspawn which is actually
a very capable engine, but it does nothing for image management, so my
containers are more like pets than cattle.  I want to get to a point
where everything is defined by a few trivially backed-up config files.

One thing I do REALLY prefer with nspawn is its flexibility around
networking.  An nspawn container can use a virtual interface attached
to any bridge, which means you can give them their own IPs, routes,
gateways, VLANs, and so on.  Docker and k8s are pretty decent about
giving containers a way to listen on the network for connection
(especially k8s ingress or load balancers), but they do nothing really
to manage the outbound traffic, which just uses the host network
config.  On a multi-homed network or when you want to run services for
VLANs and so on it seems like a lot of trouble.  Sure, you can go
crazy with iptables and iproute2 and so on, but I used to do that with
non-containerized services and hated it.  With nspawn it is pretty
trivial to set that stuff up and give any container whatever set of
interfaces you want bridged however you want them.  I actually fussed
a little with running a k8s node inside an nspawn container so that I
could just tie pods to nodes to do exotic networking but clusters
inside containers (using microk8s which runs in snapd) was just a
bridge too far...

-- 
Rich

Re: Living in NGL: was: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[William Kenworthy]

On 19/12/22 21:30, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 7:51 AM Wols Lists <antlists@youngman.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 19/12/2022 12:00, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 12:11 AM Dale<rdalek1967@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>> If I like these Raspberry things, may make a media box out of one.  I'd
>>>> like to have a remote tho.  😉
>>> So, I've done that.  Honestly, these days a Roku is probably the
>>> better option, or something like a Google Chromecast or the 47 other
>>> variations on this them.
>> Where do you put that 2TB drive on your Roku or Chromecast?
>>
>> I'm thinking of building a media server, not to drive the TV, but to
>> record and store. I thought that was what a media server was!
> So, he said "media box," which I assumed meant the client that
> attaches to the TV.  There are some canned solutions for media servers
> - I think the NVidia Shield can run Plex server for example.  However,
> in general server-side I'd go amd64.
>
> My current solution is:
> 1. Moosefs for storage: amd64 container for the master, and ARM SBCs
> for the chunkservers which host all the USB3 hard drives.  With a
> modest number of them performance is very good, though certainly not
> as good as Ceph or local storage.  (I do have moosefs in my overlay -
> might try to get that into the main repo when I get a chance.)
> 2. Plex server in a container on amd64 (looking to migrate this to k8s
> over the holiday).
> 3. Rokus or TV apps for the clients.

Very similar to what I have (intel/arm for moosefs) - I am effectively 
using moosefs as a distributed NAS (fuse mount onto whatever system(s) I 
am using) with built in data protection and redundancy.  LVM and similar 
pooling is discouraged as it defeats some of the built in data 
protection. To increase storage, just add a disk, format, add to the 
config and reload - it automatically redistributes the data.  Similarly, 
you can add/remove storage or whole storage systems while live with no 
risk to your data (within limits!!!) With LVM, if a drive fails, you are 
SOL and offline until you can recover and restore the data.  On a recent 
holiday, an SD card failed and a moosefs arm SBC in AU went offline - 
discovered the next morning when doing status checks from a ship in the 
Mediterranean(!) - it had already backfilled and protection was back at 
normal, moosefs was just missing 2Tb of storage space.  5 weeks later 
when I got home, I replaced the SD card, rebooted and readded the system 
all with no risk to the data.

Dale, I was where you are about 10 or so years ago and was forced to 
move on when that design hit its limits - forget LVM etc, these days 
there are lots of better ways to do what you want with less risk to your 
data.  Another factor is power - moosefs is currently 1 intel and 7 arm 
SBC's that use 90-110w (most of which is due to using ancient WD and 
Seagate hard drives) - where as my intel desktop is 90w when idle, or 
over 300 w when compiling etc. so its off unless its being used. Power 
is important to me as its expensive!!

BillK

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Wol]

On 18/12/2022 15:12, Dale wrote:
> I can't figure out why it is so slow tho.  The NAS rig is a 4 core CPU 
> and 8GBs of memory.  It should have enough horsepower under the hood.  
> Maybe it is something I'm not aware of.  It is a older rig so maybe it 
> isn't SATA's fastest version, maybe even the original or something.  I 
> can't find anything in lspci or dmesg so not real sure where to look on 
> BSD.

What's the path between systems? Are they both plugged into the same 
gigabit router? Have you got a switch or something in there? I've heard 
pretty bad things about switches and lowest common denominator and 
messing up your speeds ...

Cheers,
Wol

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Mark Knecht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 568 bytes --]

<SNIP>
> I can't figure out why it is so slow tho.  The NAS rig is a 4 core CPU
and 8GBs of memory.  It should have enough horsepower under the hood.
Maybe it is something I'm not aware of.  It is a older rig so maybe it
isn't SATA's fastest version, maybe even the original or something.  I
can't find anything in lspci or dmesg so not real sure where to look on
BSD.
<SNIP>

Mine is similar. It's an i3-2120 which is 2 core, 4 threads with 8GB of
DRAM. The NIC is on the motherboard and I don't remember what motherboard I
bought. It was used and cost my about $50.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 685 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Wol]

On 17/12/2022 20:03, Mark Knecht wrote:
> I'm just asking what's the purpose of doing LVM, or your
> suggested layering, specifically on a storage pool for a
> home user like Dale? That's the part I don't understand,
> especially for a new NAS user like Dale?

 From my POV, snapshots, in-place short-term backups, it's just flexible.

Actually, my main use of lvm is on my system partition - take a 
snapshot, emerge @world, make sure everything is okay ...

What I *thought* I wanted it for was my /home partition - my wife is 
forever losing stuff, getting muddled and what have you. But I don't 
think snapshotting would actually protect against what she does :-(

But the ability to snapshot anything where you think you might be doing 
something dangerous is just great - it means you can revert a disaster...

And below that, integrity/raid? Well raid protects against a drive 
failure, integrity protects against disk corruption. They're all 
unlikely events, but I've got loads of disk space, a powerful system, 
and I don't stress it, so I've got power to spare for it.

Cheers,
Wol

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Frank Steinmetzger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4050 bytes --]

Am Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 09:09:48AM -0700 schrieb Mark Knecht:

> On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 8:52 AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > I
> > > wonder, could one install the LVM stuff and use that?  That would be
> > > interesting.  I wonder if there is a NAS software that uses LVM
> > > instead.  Interesting thought.  I just may go bug google on that one.
> >
> > Maybe I'm missing the point but why would you want LVM on a
> > storage pool? If I'm doing backups I just want space. I let TrueNas
> > put it on disk and give it back if asked. Why put another layer
> > of indirection?
> > […]
> It's more about me being more used to using LVM.  Also, more used to
> Linux as well.  BSD is not something I have much experience with and until
> recently, none with ZFS.  Even the little experience I have with BSD was
> well over a decade ago, maybe two decades ago.  I barely remember it really.

The truenas interface is supposed to hide all that from you. As Mark wrote
two posts up, it’s an appliance. You install it once, that’s it. I think you
can install addons, but don’t have to. You maybe do updates once in a while,
perhaps not even that if it’s a critical production host. You don’t ssh into
it to do maintenance or to add or remove disks on the commandline. That’s
what the web UI is for. All of it. The biggest and most obvious difference
for me would be how devices are named in comparison to Linux.

> Hummm...I don't know Dale, I don't know... ZFS is a file system.
> LVM is an abstraction on top (or underneath?) of a file system.
> My understanding of LVM is that it frees you from hard decisions
> on partition sizes, not that it replaces ZFS or ext3/4/5.

LVM is “just” an abstraction layer between file system and storage. At the
bottom there are your block devices (drives, image files), which then may or
may not be RAIDed. Then you have LVM on top of that to encompass all those
devices into one big “virtual hard drive” and partition it (logical
volumes). And lastly you put file systems into those volumes. So there are
two, three (or even four, if you add encryption somewhere in between) layers
stacked onto your raw devices.

ZFS OTOH is all of that in one. It takes the raw block devices as a whole,
puts them (optionally) into redundancy structures, allows for “partitions”
(i.e. datasets) and lastly also *is* the file system. The advantage is that
it can combine its knowledge about all those layers to improve performance
and reliability. So for instance it distributes writes according to vdev
occupancy (LVM has no knowledge about the FS layer above it). Or when you
rebuild a RAID, only those parts that are actually used by the FS need to be
reconstructed, not the whole disk.

I may come off as a ZFS fanboy in this thread. But I am in no way an expert,
just a small-time user with just that one NAS with one RAID setup. That’s
it. I did a lot of reading beforehand, whether I should use it or mdadm or
btrfs. All my knowledge comes from that time, I never worked with it in my
professional life.

I also use LVM on my systems these days, just in case my root partition
becomes crowded and needs some extra space that I can take from the media
partition. Had to do this once, it went quick and was a fun experience.

> WRT you I recommend that you try living in NGL for a while. Possibly
> you are just a bit too indoctrinated in the religion of building packages
> 30-50 times a year believing (without hard data) that it provides value.

+1
I admit I like the occasional update of my Gentoo NAS. But that’s also
because it’s my last living Gentoo device. I always liked the environment,
still do. Gentoo was my first Linux after all, that stuff stays in your
mind. But oh the time-consuming hassle sometimes.

-- 
Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.

The fantasy of men is often inadequate to grasp the reality of women.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Frank Steinmetzger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 974 bytes --]

Am Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 10:08:02PM -0600 schrieb Dale:

I just read a news story about a new NAS model from Terramaster.
(Interestingly, they have their OS on an internal USB stick, so it’s easy to
swap it out for a standard Linux. And it uses a nice Celeron N5100 x86
processor.)

> Eventually, I plan to build a Raspberry Pi NAS.  When I do, I'll post
> everything major I needed, boards, case etc for everyone to look at. 
> I'll even try to upload some pics, or share as attachments if there is
> interest.  Unless I find one heck of a deal on a used NAS that is. 
> Still may build one even then.  ;-)

In the comments section of the article, there was a link to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2S2RMNv7OU
A Raspberry Pi NAS with 1 Petabyte of storage. Enjoy. :)

-- 
Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.

Windows is great, you can download Linux with it.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> Am Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 10:08:02PM -0600 schrieb Dale:
>
> I just read a news story about a new NAS model from Terramaster.
> (Interestingly, they have their OS on an internal USB stick, so it’s easy to
> swap it out for a standard Linux. And it uses a nice Celeron N5100 x86
> processor.)
>
>> Eventually, I plan to build a Raspberry Pi NAS.  When I do, I'll post
>> everything major I needed, boards, case etc for everyone to look at. 
>> I'll even try to upload some pics, or share as attachments if there is
>> interest.  Unless I find one heck of a deal on a used NAS that is. 
>> Still may build one even then.  ;-)
> In the comments section of the article, there was a link to this:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2S2RMNv7OU
> A Raspberry Pi NAS with 1 Petabyte of storage. Enjoy. :)
>

I think if I can hold out a little while, something really nice is going
to come along.  It seems there is a good bit of interest in having a
Raspberry Pi NAS that gives really good performance.  I'm talking a NAS
that is about the same speed as a internal drive.  Plus the ability to
use RAID and such.  I'd like to have a 6 bay with 6 drives setup in
pairs for redundancy.  I can't recall what number RAID that is. 
Basically, if one drive fails, another copy still exists.  Of course,
two independent NASs would be better in my opinion.  Still, any of this
is progress. 

I've watched some videos by that guy but I don't recall seeing that
one.  That one, while pricey, shows that a lot can be done with a little
Raspberry Pi.  I read that a version 5 is coming, if they ever become
available again.  Right now, it seems the supply chain has grinded to a
halt.  It's hard to find quite a few things at the moment. 

Thanks for the link.  I have a feeling even better is coming soon. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

P. S.  My backup I started days ago, maybe 1/4 to 1/3 of the way
through.  It's made it to the names starting with F.  It has a ways to
go.  A lot of stuff starts with 'The'.  That alone is quite large.  It's
making progress tho.  Slowly.  ;-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Wols Lists]

On 21/12/2022 02:47, Dale wrote:
> I think if I can hold out a little while, something really nice is going
> to come along.  It seems there is a good bit of interest in having a
> Raspberry Pi NAS that gives really good performance.  I'm talking a NAS
> that is about the same speed as a internal drive.  Plus the ability to
> use RAID and such.  I'd like to have a 6 bay with 6 drives setup in
> pairs for redundancy.  I can't recall what number RAID that is.
> Basically, if one drive fails, another copy still exists.  Of course,
> two independent NASs would be better in my opinion.  Still, any of this
> is progress.

That's called either Raid-10 (linux), or Raid-1+0 (elsewhere). Note that 
1+0 is often called 10, but linux-10 is slightly different.

I'd personally be inclined to go for raid-6. That's 4 data drives, 2 
parity (so you could have an "any two" drive failure and still recover).

A two-copy 10 or 1+0 is vulnerable to a two-drive failure. A three-copy 
is vulnerable to a three-drive failure.

In other words, a two-copy raid-10 might be taken out by a failure that 
a raid-6 will survive. A three-copy raid-10 might be taken out by a 
failure that will take out a raid-6. Choose your poison :-)

Cheers,
Wol

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Frank Steinmetzger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3116 bytes --]

Am Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 05:53:03AM +0000 schrieb Wols Lists:

> On 21/12/2022 02:47, Dale wrote:
> > I think if I can hold out a little while, something really nice is going
> > to come along.  It seems there is a good bit of interest in having a
> > Raspberry Pi NAS that gives really good performance.  I'm talking a NAS
> > that is about the same speed as a internal drive.  Plus the ability to
> > use RAID and such.  I'd like to have a 6 bay with 6 drives setup in
> > pairs for redundancy.  I can't recall what number RAID that is.
> > Basically, if one drive fails, another copy still exists.  Of course,
> > two independent NASs would be better in my opinion.  Still, any of this
> > is progress.
> 
> That's called either Raid-10 (linux), or Raid-1+0 (elsewhere). Note that 1+0
> is often called 10, but linux-10 is slightly different.

In layman’s term, a stripe of mirrors. Raid-1 is the mirror, Raid-0 a (JBOD)
pool. So mirror + pool = mirrorpool, hence the 1+0 → 10.

> I'd personally be inclined to go for raid-6. That's 4 data drives, 2 parity
> (so you could have an "any two" drive failure and still recover).
> A two-copy 10 or 1+0 is vulnerable to a two-drive failure. A three-copy is
> vulnerable to a three-drive failure.

At first, I had only two drives in my 4-bay NAS, which were of course set up
as a mirror. After a year, when it became full, I bought the second pair of
drives and had long deliberations by then, what to choose. I went for raid-6
(or RaidZ2 in ZFS parlance). With only four disks, it has the same net
capacity as a pair of mirrors, but at the advantage that *any* two drives
may fail, not just two particular ones. A raid of mirrors has performance
benefits over a parity raid, but who cares for a simple Gbit storage device.

With increasing number of disks, a mirror setup is at a disadvantage with
storage efficiency – it’s always 50 % or less, if you mirror over more than
two disks. But with only four disks, that was irrelevant in my case. On the
plus-side, each mirror can have a different physical disk size, so you can
more easily mix’n’match what you got lying around, or do upgrades in smaller
increments.

If I wanted to increase my capacity, I’d have to replace *all* drives with
bigger ones. With a mirror, only the drives in one of the mirrors need
replacing. And the rebuild process would be quicker and less painful, as
each drive will only be read once to rebuild its partner, and there is no
parity calculation involved. In a RAID, each drive is replaced one by one,
and each replacement requires a full read of all drives’ payload. With older
drives, this is cause for some concern whether the disks may survive that.
That’s why, with increasing disk capacities, raid-5 is said to be obsolete.
Because if another drive fails during rebuild, you are officially screwed.

Fun, innit?

-- 
Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.

The boss is a human just like everyone else, he just doesn’t know.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[William Kenworthy]

On 21/12/22 14:19, Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> Am Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 05:53:03AM +0000 schrieb Wols Lists:
>
>> On 21/12/2022 02:47, Dale wrote:
>> ...
> In layman’s term, a stripe of mirrors. Raid-1 is the mirror, Raid-0 a (JBOD)
> pool. So mirror + pool = mirrorpool, hence the 1+0 → 10.
>
> ...

I tend to use older drives that have led a hard life - so failure 
happens and I have to be prepared for it (by having good backups!)

I have found mirrors to be problematic  - sometimes when one drive 
fails, it causes a cascade of fails that includes the data on the 
mirror.  With raid-10, its worse (even more fragile). When I eventually 
moved away from raid for my main data store it was because of a 
catastrophic failure of a bcache ssd fronting one of the mirrors causing 
all data to be lost - somewhat self-caused by using bcache to try and 
get some more speed out of the system, but as a RAID 10 with 4 HDD 
fronted by 4x SSD it should have survived ...  In the end, I realised 
that raided data gave me a small speedup with little or no benefit as 
regards reliable data storage.  I currently have one linux raid 10 using 
4xSSD's that has suffered one SSD abrupt failure and survived - which I 
regard as "being lucky".  SSD's are an issue as they usually fail 
abruptly without warning whereas spinning rust usually gives some warning.

I've never tried RAID-6 as it was still considered buggy/risky at the time.

No matter what storage system you use, offline backups are better - raid 
is NOT a viable backup.

> Fun, innit?
>
YEP!

BillK

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Wol]

On 21/12/2022 06:19, Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> Am Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 05:53:03AM +0000 schrieb Wols Lists:
> 
>> On 21/12/2022 02:47, Dale wrote:
>>> I think if I can hold out a little while, something really nice is going
>>> to come along.  It seems there is a good bit of interest in having a
>>> Raspberry Pi NAS that gives really good performance.  I'm talking a NAS
>>> that is about the same speed as a internal drive.  Plus the ability to
>>> use RAID and such.  I'd like to have a 6 bay with 6 drives setup in
>>> pairs for redundancy.  I can't recall what number RAID that is.
>>> Basically, if one drive fails, another copy still exists.  Of course,
>>> two independent NASs would be better in my opinion.  Still, any of this
>>> is progress.
>>
>> That's called either Raid-10 (linux), or Raid-1+0 (elsewhere). Note that 1+0
>> is often called 10, but linux-10 is slightly different.
> 
> In layman’s term, a stripe of mirrors. Raid-1 is the mirror, Raid-0 a (JBOD)
> pool. So mirror + pool = mirrorpool, hence the 1+0 → 10.

Except raid-10 is not a stripe of mirrors. It's each block is saved to 
two different drives. (Or 3, or more, so long as you have more drives 
than mirrors.)

Linux will happily give you a 2-copy mirror across 3 drives - 3x6TB 
drives will give you 9TB useful storage ...
> 
>> I'd personally be inclined to go for raid-6. That's 4 data drives, 2 parity
>> (so you could have an "any two" drive failure and still recover).
>> A two-copy 10 or 1+0 is vulnerable to a two-drive failure. A three-copy is
>> vulnerable to a three-drive failure.
> 
> At first, I had only two drives in my 4-bay NAS, which were of course set up
> as a mirror. After a year, when it became full, I bought the second pair of
> drives and had long deliberations by then, what to choose. I went for raid-6
> (or RaidZ2 in ZFS parlance). With only four disks, it has the same net
> capacity as a pair of mirrors, but at the advantage that *any* two drives
> may fail, not just two particular ones. A raid of mirrors has performance
> benefits over a parity raid, but who cares for a simple Gbit storage device.
> 
> With increasing number of disks, a mirror setup is at a disadvantage with
> storage efficiency – it’s always 50 % or less, if you mirror over more than
> two disks. But with only four disks, that was irrelevant in my case. On the
> plus-side, each mirror can have a different physical disk size, so you can
> more easily mix’n’match what you got lying around, or do upgrades in smaller
> increments.
> 
> If I wanted to increase my capacity, I’d have to replace *all* drives with
> bigger ones. With a mirror, only the drives in one of the mirrors need
> replacing. And the rebuild process would be quicker and less painful, as
> each drive will only be read once to rebuild its partner, and there is no
> parity calculation involved. In a RAID, each drive is replaced one by one,
> and each replacement requires a full read of all drives’ payload.

If you've got a spare SATA connection or whatever, each replacement does 
not need a full read of all drives. "mdadm --add /dev/sdx --replace 
/dev/sdy". That'll stream sdy on to sdx, and only hammer the other 
drives if sdy complains ...

> With older
> drives, this is cause for some concern whether the disks may survive that.
> That’s why, with increasing disk capacities, raid-5 is said to be obsolete.
> Because if another drive fails during rebuild, you are officially screwed.
> 
> Fun, innit?
> 
They've always said that. Just make sure you don't have multiple drives 
from the same batch, then they're less likely statistically to fail at 
the same time. I'm running raid-5 over 3TB partitions ...

Cheers,
Wol

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Frank Steinmetzger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3721 bytes --]

Am Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 08:03:36PM +0000 schrieb Wol:
> On 21/12/2022 06:19, Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> > Am Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 05:53:03AM +0000 schrieb Wols Lists:
> > 
> > > On 21/12/2022 02:47, Dale wrote:
> > > > I think if I can hold out a little while, something really nice is going
> > > > to come along.  It seems there is a good bit of interest in having a
> > > > Raspberry Pi NAS that gives really good performance.  I'm talking a NAS
> > > > that is about the same speed as a internal drive.  Plus the ability to
> > > > use RAID and such.  I'd like to have a 6 bay with 6 drives setup in
> > > > pairs for redundancy.  I can't recall what number RAID that is.
> > > > Basically, if one drive fails, another copy still exists.  Of course,
> > > > two independent NASs would be better in my opinion.  Still, any of this
> > > > is progress.
> > > 
> > > That's called either Raid-10 (linux), or Raid-1+0 (elsewhere). Note that 1+0
> > > is often called 10, but linux-10 is slightly different.
> > 

> > In layman’s term, a stripe of mirrors. Raid-1 is the mirror, Raid-0 a (JBOD)
> > pool. So mirror + pool = mirrorpool, hence the 1+0 → 10.
> 
> Except raid-10 is not a stripe of mirrors.
> It's each block is saved to two different drives. (Or 3, or more, so long
> as you have more drives than mirrors.)

Yes? In a mirror setup, all member drives of a mirror have the same content
(at least in ZFS).

Raid 10 distributes its content across several mirrors. This is the cause
for its increased performance. So when one of the mirrors (not single drive,
but a whole set of mirrored drives) fails, the pool is gone.

> Linux will happily give you a 2-copy mirror across 3 drives - 3x6TB drives
> will give you 9TB useful storage ...

I admit, I’ve never head of that. (Though it sounds like raid-5 to me.)

> > If I wanted to increase my capacity, I’d have to replace *all* drives with
> > bigger ones. With a mirror, only the drives in one of the mirrors need
> > replacing. And the rebuild process would be quicker and less painful, as
> > each drive will only be read once to rebuild its partner, and there is no
> > parity calculation involved. In a RAID, each drive is replaced one by one,
> > and each replacement requires a full read of all drives’ payload.
>
> If you've got a spare SATA connection or whatever, each replacement does not
> need a full read of all drives. "mdadm --add /dev/sdx --replace /dev/sdy".
> That'll stream sdy on to sdx, and only hammer the other drives if sdy
> complains ...

Strange that I didn’t think of that, even though it’s a perfectly clear
concept. In ZFS there is also a replace function which would do just that.
Currently I plan on keeping my old drives (who would want to buy them off of
me anyways) and just reorganise them in Z1 over Z2. I’ll just have to move
all data off to temprary external drives.

> > With older
> > drives, this is cause for some concern whether the disks may survive that.
> > That’s why, with increasing disk capacities, raid-5 is said to be obsolete.
> > Because if another drive fails during rebuild, you are officially screwed.
> > 
> > Fun, innit?
> > 
> They've always said that. Just make sure you don't have multiple drives from
> the same batch, then they're less likely statistically to fail at the same
> time. I'm running raid-5 over 3TB partitions ...

Yeah, I bought my drives from different shops back then for that reason.

-- 
Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.

When the going gets tough, the tough get going.
... and so do I. – Alf

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Wol]

On 21/12/2022 20:40, Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> Yes? In a mirror setup, all member drives of a mirror have the same content
> (at least in ZFS).
> 
> Raid 10 distributes its content across several mirrors. This is the cause
> for its increased performance. So when one of the mirrors (not single drive,
> but a whole set of mirrored drives) fails, the pool is gone.
> 
>> Linux will happily give you a 2-copy mirror across 3 drives - 3x6TB drives
>> will give you 9TB useful storage ...

> I admit, I’ve never head of that. (Though it sounds like raid-5 to me.)

Raid 5 has a parity drive (or rather, raid 4 has a parity drive. Raid 5 
smears parity across all disks). It does not store duplicate copies. 
Raid 10 has duplicate data and no parity.
> 
Read up on linux raid-10. It is NOT raid-1+0.

Drive   sda sdb sdc

Blocks   1   1   2
          2   3   3
          4   4   5
          5   6   6

etc ...

https://raid.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/What_is_RAID_and_why_should_you_want_it%3F

(Disclaimer - I either wrote or heavily edited it.)

Cheers,
Wol

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Dale]

Wols Lists wrote:
> On 21/12/2022 02:47, Dale wrote:
>> I think if I can hold out a little while, something really nice is going
>> to come along.  It seems there is a good bit of interest in having a
>> Raspberry Pi NAS that gives really good performance.  I'm talking a NAS
>> that is about the same speed as a internal drive.  Plus the ability to
>> use RAID and such.  I'd like to have a 6 bay with 6 drives setup in
>> pairs for redundancy.  I can't recall what number RAID that is.
>> Basically, if one drive fails, another copy still exists.  Of course,
>> two independent NASs would be better in my opinion.  Still, any of this
>> is progress.
>
> That's called either Raid-10 (linux), or Raid-1+0 (elsewhere). Note
> that 1+0 is often called 10, but linux-10 is slightly different.
>
> I'd personally be inclined to go for raid-6. That's 4 data drives, 2
> parity (so you could have an "any two" drive failure and still recover).
>
> A two-copy 10 or 1+0 is vulnerable to a two-drive failure. A
> three-copy is vulnerable to a three-drive failure.
>
> In other words, a two-copy raid-10 might be taken out by a failure
> that a raid-6 will survive. A three-copy raid-10 might be taken out by
> a failure that will take out a raid-6. Choose your poison :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Wol
>
> .
>


This is why at some point, I'd like to have two sets of backups.  RAID
or not.  If I alternate between the two or update one weekly and the
other monthly, odds of both being lost for some reason is slim.  Nothing
is ever impossible but not very likely.  I could even keep the monthly
backup, or second backup, in a outbuilding.  That would protect from a
house fire or something.  I have a fire safe but still. 

I'm hoping that this Raspberry thing will work out.  My reasons, I can
upgrade easily, change OS and/or software if I want plus I may can even
expand to a larger number of drives if needed.  Buying a pre-built NAS,
I think I'd be stuck with whatever I bought.  Most likely no path for
upgrade, changing OS and/or software or much of anything else either. 
Basically, it is what it is when I buy it.  Given the info in the video
you shared, I think something good is coming as soon as things get back
to going again. 

Thanks again for the link.  It lead to some other good videos too. 

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] NAS and replacing with larger drives

[Mark Knecht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 190 bytes --]

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 11:52 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
> This is why at some point, I'd like to have two sets of backups.  RAID
> or not.

Amazon Snowball? :-) ;-)

MArk

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 343 bytes --]