Linux

48665 readers

489 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

Is using an HDD with an SSD as cache on Linux a good idea? (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by qaz@lemmy.world to c/linux@lemmy.ml

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I currently have a 1 TiB NVMe drive that has been hovering at 100 GiB left for the past couple months. I've kept it down by deleting a game every couple weeks, but I would like to play something sometime, and I'm running out of games to delete if I need more space.

That's why I've been thinking about upgrading to a 2 TiB drive, but I just saw an interesting forum thread about LVM cache. The promise of having the storage capacity of an HDD with (usually) the speed of an SSD seems very appealing, but is it actually as good as it seems to be?

And if it is possible, which software should be used? LVM cache seems like a decent option, but I've seen people say it's slow. bcache is also sometimes mentioned, but apparently that one can be unreliable at times.

Beyond that, what method should be used? The Arch Wiki page for bcache mentions several options. Some only seem to cache writes, while some aim to keep the HDD idle as long as possible.

Also, does anyone run a setup like this themselves?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Atemu@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 hours ago

I also have several virtual machines which take up about 100 GiB.

This would be the first thing I'd look into getting rid of.

Could these just be containers instead? What are they storing?

nix store (15 GiB)

How large is your (I assume home-manager) closure? If this is 2-3 generations worth, that sounds about right.

system libraries (/usr is 22.5 GiB).

That's extremely large. Like, 2x of what you'd expect a typical system to have.

You should have a look at what's using all that space using your system package manager.

EDIT: ncdu says I've stored 129.1 TiB lol

If you're on btrfs and have a non-trivial subvolume setup, you can't just let ncdu loose on the root subvolume. You need to take a more principled approach.

For assessing your actual working size, you need to ignore snapshots for instance as those are mostly the same extents as your "working set".

You need to keep in mind that snapshots do themselves take up space too though, depending on how much you've deleted or written since taking the snapshot.

btdu is a great tool to analyse space usage of a non-trivial btrfs setup in a probabilistic fashion. It's not available in many distros but you have Nix and we have it of course ;)

Snapshots are the #1 most likely cause for your space usage woes. Any space usage that you cannot explain using your working set is probably caused by them.

Also: Are you using transparent compression? IME it can reduce space usage of data that is similar to typical Nix store contents by about half.