poinck

joined 7 months ago
[–] poinck@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago

I game on Debian; it is absolutely up to the task.

It is called the universal operating system for a reason.

[–] poinck@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Thx, I decided to not use raid for shipping.

[–] poinck@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

this is scientific data.

Funfact, I recently did a scrub on my offline backup drive of my work PC. It correct around 250 errors. I wouldn't have noticed any problems if I had used ext4 instead of btrfs.

[–] poinck@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

I agree with both of you. Somehow I don't worry about the drive in my laptop but 80 TB of scientific data is another thing, and I want to make sure it is the same data when it arrives.

[–] poinck@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

That sounds scary and like I need at least btrfs if I need to ship the data instead of using rsync.

[–] poinck@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Yes, using rsync between the two servers would be the best option. I guess, despite I already have the drives. On my end I could provide the access and arrange proper security with VPN, but at the target there are still too many question marks and I cannot currently count on some basic Linux knowledge there.

For a previous transfer of much less data I had to write a PS script that handled the transfer. It was very slow.

So, I am actually dealing with another problem: Can I get enough information from the non-tech persons to provide the best and easiest solution for them.

Thx so far all the ideas from all of you.

[–] poinck@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Thx.

The disks are only meant for transport at this time.

The more I think about it, the more I lean towards btrfs, because even if they don't use btrfs on the target server the copying process will do the error correction based on the checksums in btrfs itself. I hope btrfs does it the same way as ZFS in this scenario.

[–] poinck@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Your assumption is correct. These are many files of medium size: sat raster images.

The more I think about it, the more I lean towards btrfs, because even if they don't use btrfs on the target server the copying process will do the error correction based on the checksums in btrfs itself.

[–] poinck@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I wasn't involved in the decision process to buy those drives and enclosures. Now they act as a backup, too.

[–] poinck@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

More like 8x 10 TB drives.

[–] poinck@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It is scientific data that needs to be available on another server.

 

I want to transfer 80 TB of data to another locatio . I already have the drives for it. The idea is to copy everything to it, fly it to the target and use or copy the data on/to the server.

What filesystem would you use and would you use a raid configuration? Currently I lean towards 8 single disk filesystems on the 10 TB drives with ext4, because it is simple. I considered ZFS because of the possiblity to scrub at the target destination and/or pool all drives. But ZFS may not be available at the target.

There is btrfs which should be available everywhere because it is in mainline linux and ZFS is not. But from my knowledge btrfs would require lvm to pool disks together like zfs can do natively.

Pooling the drives would also be a problem if one disk gets lost during transit. If I have everything on 8 single disks at least the remaining data can be used at the target and they only have to wait for the missing data.

I like to read about your opinions or practical experience with similar challanges.

[–] poinck@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

Did you just say, that popups are back? scream

view more: next ›