Linux
Welcome to c/linux!
Welcome to our thriving Linux community! Whether you're a seasoned Linux enthusiast or just starting your journey, we're excited to have you here. Explore, learn, and collaborate with like-minded individuals who share a passion for open-source software and the endless possibilities it offers. Together, let's dive into the world of Linux and embrace the power of freedom, customization, and innovation. Enjoy your stay and feel free to join the vibrant discussions that await you!
Rules:
-
Stay on topic: Posts and discussions should be related to Linux, open source software, and related technologies.
-
Be respectful: Treat fellow community members with respect and courtesy.
-
Quality over quantity: Share informative and thought-provoking content.
-
No spam or self-promotion: Avoid excessive self-promotion or spamming.
-
No NSFW adult content
-
Follow general lemmy guidelines.
view the rest of the comments
Raid1 isn't the most performant by itself. (Thats what I mean by efficiency) It is better to use 4 disks with data being written to two disks at a time.
The benefit of a dedicated NAS is that it works with basically any client OS. Both Windows and Linux have good support for SMB so it is just a matter of mounting the drive. Wine doesn't matter in this case.
@possiblylinux127 To be sure, but I assume since he was formerly running Windows performance wasn't an issue. No, it's obvious he is more concerned with getting the clutter factor down so he stated a preference for a single large drive, and if data isn't important or backed up some other media fine. If not, then you risk losing your data because sooner later drives fail. If performance was really the goal he'd raid a bunch of nvme drives together. This, by the way, is what I do for the system that runs this friendica node, along with an 18 core processor and 256 gb of RAM.