My primary, active (vs. backup) local disk space is ...
Displaying poll results.20148 total votes.
Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8481 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 7638 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 20 comments
"Local disk space"? (Score:3)
Windows?
Steam?
NAS?
10.0.0.10:/mnt/user/Documents 3.7T 1.1T 2.6T 29%
I initially voted 60-80, but maybe I should have voted 40-60. (The terrifying part is that the NAS is the closest thing I have to backups.)
Re: (Score:3)
/ = 16% of 64GB
/home = 68% of 1TB
/media = 38% of 1TB
So overall, about 50%...
Re: (Score:2)
One servers at home has disks about 55% full, while the other is less than 20%. One desktops has disks about 60% full, while the other has them about 40% full. The laptops have disks which are 30% full and 40% full. I picked 40-60% as the poll option as it is sort-of representative, but it could have been trickier if the various machines all had widely different percentages.
Re: (Score:2)
Crashplan offers very reasonable rates for a family plan, as low as $8.96/month for up to 10 computers and they have clients for Windows, Mac, and Linux. You can even continue to use your NAS since they support backups to local folders in addition to the cloud backup and you can even get the machines to cross backup each other for the most critical files. It took me a couple weeks to backup 160GB over a 1Mbps max upload connection so it's not very throttled at all unlike some of the other inexpensive servic
Re: (Score:2)
This... my / is on a 60GB SSD, and has maybe 5GB used. /home shares a 2TB drive with a 250GB Windows partition for gaming and a SWAP partition that never gets used except for hibernate. /home has about 50kB of conf files on it, and is otherwise empty. (gets used for ripping/xcoding DVD and BD... sometimes I'll queue up 20-30 discs and leave it for a few days to finish). The Windows partition has several games installed and is closer to 40-50% full at the moment. On my laptop, it's a 40GB SSD which also only
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, same here - didn't read the question carefully enough.
Boot drive with /home is 25% used; the rest of 3TB on other drives is around 65%. Gotta get some more storage.
Gauss is back (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry -- the polling system is a bit clunky, and doesn't get the love we would like sometimes ;) There are 8 options, max, so we'll never get really smooth curves without a complete overhaul ;)
Tim
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Gauss is back (Score:5, Informative)
You'll find plenty with *fewer* than 8, but (so far as I know, and barring warps in the space-time continuum) none with more.
And by-the-by, polls (prompt question only, or prompt question and response choices) are always welcome!
timothy
Re: (Score:3)
"What's the ideal number of options in a /. poll?"
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Gauss is back (Score:5, Funny)
"What's the ideal number of options in a /. poll?"
One
Three to five
Several, but with overlapping categories
Several, but with gaps
I can't count, you insensitive clod.
Re: (Score:2)
One
Three to five
Several, but with overlapping categories
Several, but with gaps
I can't count, you insensitive clod.
Your forgot one:
CowboyNeal
Re: (Score:3)
I'm only counting seven options up there Timothy, and not one mentions CowboyNeal's chest. I'm not gonna lie, I'm very disappointed in you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm seeing a linear trend towards the "80-100". Tells me that budgets are tight, people are buying storage as and when they absolutely require it, not because they're planning ahead. Am I right?
Re:Gauss is back (Score:5, Insightful)
Or perhaps people don't bother deleting stuff they no longer need until they start to run out of space.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Gauss is back (Score:5, Informative)
Why? Speed.
- Most filesystems will slow down as they approach a full status. This is particularly true for write speed.
- Rotational disks are faster near the outer rim (start of the disk) and slower near the hub. A 2TB WDC drive I have here does 150 MB/s near the beginning, and only 70 MB/s near the end. That's typical figures. By only partitioning the first 60% of the disk, I get 120-150 MB/s speeds. (This is not to be confused with short stroking, which reduces the access time by reducing reading arm movement.)
- For mechanical drives, disk fragmentation also becomes more of a problem the fuller the disk is. (And yes, fragmentation also affects Linux file systems.)
- SSDs need to spend a disproportionally larger time doing garbage collection and clearing up sectors as a disk approaches full (yes, even with TRIM, unless you always delete entire sectors).
For a near full disk, it's not uncommon to have 1 second or more hiccoughs because the drive firmware hasn't been able to prepare sectors for writing.
Re: (Score:2)
Storage requirements will increase to meet storage (Score:2)
So you might have thought, but I've only just managed to fill just under 40% of this disk after several years' use.
Perhaps it's because I don't fill my disk up with tens of gigabytes of stolen porno movies?
Re: (Score:2)
Tens of gigabytes??? Where have you been? They have HD porno these days. You can easily fill a few hundred gigs at HD resolutions. :)
Plus we all know everything is better in HD.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I personally found this to be true. This also relates to the increase in bandwidth - the more I have, the more I'll make use of. The latter being especially true though and the first has actually dropped off. I'm at about 20% full and I've had this drive for a little over a year. I simply don't download nearly as much as I used to, I've already downloaded all the movies and music I wanted. These days I don't even normally download those, I simply stream everything. So, it was true for me for a very long tim
112% (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I was reading this on my iPad (Score:2)
So I took a look - 11 gigabytes used, 17.3 available.
Of course if this was a Surface I'd be out of room!
Re:I was reading this on my iPad (Score:5, Insightful)
Not true! The disk space on Surface just takes into account that there are no worthwhile apps to install.
"The steady state of disks is full." (Score:2)
. . . a quote from Ken Thompson.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, we notice a slowdown once you pass ~90% full and another significant one when you pass ~95% full. Perhaps it's just that the IOPS/GB of active data gets too high when we get to that full but it's pretty noticeable on the performance graphs.
I don't use local storage... (Score:2, Funny)
...you insensitive cloud!
I dont use disks (Score:5, Funny)
knoppix live-boot off USB flash drives (Score:3)
.
Mean insensitive cloud storage, bad cloud! I dont use disks either, just USB flash drives for me. I use knoppix as a live-boot distro from usb on a 16-GB stick with 4.2 GB used up for the main OS and about 3 GB used up for an "overlay" using the UnionFS [wikipedia.org] Union File System used by knoppix to overlay the compressed "knoppix" disk image with the extra applications I downloaded like Octave and Blender and a few other small toys like pente and xgalaga. Then, data f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I named mine "Sephiroth".
Which "primary"? (Score:2)
My gaming computer is about 90% full because I'm holding out for the new 2tb hybrids from Seagate. But I wouldn't call it my primary computer because I only fire it up when I want to play games or gather information. Pretty much nothing but games stored on there. My main laptop (and primary computer) is about 70% full but that's because I keep a bunch of movies and TV shows on it so I have something to watch when I travel. Without that, it'd be around 20%. My phone is around 80% for reasons similar to
oh now let's see... (Score:2)
Video library (shared RAID box (3x2TB, one volume)): 352GB/5.43TB
Music library (same box, different stack (2x1TB, 1 volume)): 359GB/1.81TB
Document Library (same box, yet another stack (4x250GB, 1 volume): 265GB/931GB
...and a pile in another box for ISO image storage (4x500GB, 4x300GB, 4x250GB, 3 volumes): 280GB/4.03TB
*Local* local storage: 66.9GB/465GB
Not counting the three desk drawers full of drives that add up to something like 34TB, that I'm looking to transfer out to either massive storage like a few 4
RAID 0? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, just use df
I could never decide which RAIDlevel I wanted to use either, so back in the day I had split up 4x 250GB drives into several partitions and used different levels of SW RAID as appropriate:
/ : 20GB RAID10 /home : 200GB RAID5 /tmp : 20GB RAID0
I did it more for performance than redundancy, though. But I did survive through a physical disk failure once.
Nowadays my server runs on a little ION box, so I don't have enough SATA ports to do anything interesting... just have a small SSD for the OS
Re: (Score:2)
Using RAID0 when RAID5 exists should be a crime.
Given that he said that he has only two drives in his array, it's kind of... uh... impossible for him to configure it as RAID 5.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
RAID 5 is okay, but the write performance can suffer badly from parity calculation bottlenecks if you don't have a good hardware controller and is only able to handle a single disk failure. Rebuilds can be time consuming as well.
I prefer RAID 10. It can be implemented in software with no appreciable performance hit and is less expensive than RAID 5 for the same capacity*. It's also not susceptible to controller or motherboard failures and is faster in a degraded state.
*(4 drives vs. 3 drives + controller
My drive has unlimited storage. (Score:2)
At least I have never run out of space for my important documents...
http://www.cracktwo.com/2011/04/chinese-fake-hard-drive.html [cracktwo.com]
SD
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ah, it's a Write-Only-Memory (WOM). I'm pretty sure it also is called a Write-Only-No-Getting (WONG) device, because when you call the support number in China to complain they say "you have WONG number!"
85% on this machine (Score:2)
My SSD is about half full, and that's not counting the partition I swear I'll get a Linux install on one day. Meanwhile, my hard drive is about 90% full, not counting the Windows recovery partition.
Totals up to almost exactly 85% utilization. I'm trying to delete some excess stuff from the hard drive, but I keep downloading more to replace any space I free up.
Just upgraded! (Score:2)
I just reached 90% full on my drive a few weeks ago, so I upgraded to a shiny new disk and now I'm at 0-20% full.
I don't use local storage... (Score:2, Funny)
I thin-provision with dedup, you insensitive clod! (Score:2)
Well over 100% full.
120% full (Score:3)
I use compression :-)
Re: (Score:3)
I have volumes that are 400+% full, thank you thin provisioning!
RAID (Score:2)
My primary disk is a 5-disk array (with 2 SSD cache devices!). About 4 TB free. I had a RAID10 setup with four disks before, but it was getting close to full. 8 TB is overkill, but it was just a matter of adding a single drive. My backup disk is only 1 TB, so much of what I have are files that can be re-generated, or which have copies in other places. Also TV recordings. My *secondary* active disk a 500 GB hybrid disk in a laptop, and it's above 80 %. Tertiary active disk is the app storage on the Android p
I don't store much (Score:2)
I don't store much stuff locally. Sure, I have a few things I need on my hard drive, including source files for my open source software projects. But my (few) documents and email are in Google. (Yes, I know ... but it's so easy.) On a 25GB /home partition, I'm using 6.7GB (29%). That would be less than 20% if you don't count the Fedora XFCE liveCD install image in my Downloads folder.
"Space" is too ambiguous (Score:2)
Are we measuring internal volume only? Or the volume of the whole drive-bay space? The case seems to occupy much of the space in the drive bay, I'd say 80 percent. But the drive's case is mostly empty, the platters don't seem to fill up much of the case to allow space for the arms, maybe 30 percent of the space being filled. And if you were to open it up and use Archimedes method to work out the volume of the parts, then contrast that with the drive-bay volume, by that measure you'd have even less space fil
You insensitive clod! (Score:2)
I use Punch Cards!
Do you count exernal drives (Score:2)
My C: drive (65GB) is 89% full, but the main data storage drive(1TB) is only 11% full
I also have an SSD (120GB) that still has 110 gigs free -any new programs I install will go here
But I also have a 750Gig USB3.0 external drive, and a 32GB fjashdrive connected all the time.
Both less than 10% full
Eight percent (Score:2)
robert@debian:~$ df
Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda1 73052684 5186132 64155616 8% /
progress meter (Score:2)
Wild, I never expected these poll results to look like a progress meter.
du -h
Duh.
who needs hard drives?! (Score:2)
I just have a bunch of chinese kids memorize sequences of zeros and ones
60-80 (Score:2)
60-80% on my primary, thanks to a neverending parade of additional drives. :-|
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, how exactly is RAID counted?
What a weird question.
Of course the mirror and the parity drive are backups, isn't that how your file system reports capacity?
Re:Raid? (Score:5, Insightful)
well, no not really. In a RAID0, there is no Redundancy. It's more accurately a AID, or just an Array of Inexpensive Disks. For Redundancy in a striped array, you need parity information to ensure against failure of *any one disk*, and that's a RAID4, 5 or 6 (6 giving you double failover with not one, but TWO sets of parity information distributed throughout the array, as opposed to RAID4 which has one set of parity information written to a single disk in the array and RAID5 has that single set of parity information distributed throughout the array).
In a RAID1, there is 100% failover redundancy but this is not a backup solution. All it is, is an insurance against physical failure of ONE HALF of the array.
If you use a RAID, you need to be aware that whatever you do to the data on the array, is what you do to it. IF you delete it in such a way as to render it irretrievable, then that's it. Unless you have a backup.
**REDUNDANCY is NOT BACKUP**
Re: (Score:2)
**REDUNDANCY is NOT BACKUP**
My old boss always cheated - pull a drive from the RAID-1, take it home while the RAID-1 rebuilds with a third drive. That way one is always offsite, and the work is always saved on two drives.
Fortunately (or unfortunately depending how you look at it) he's never had a disk fail mid way through the daily/ weekly rebuild.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if that happened, I don't see how you would lose your data, as everything should still be on the disk you pulled out of the array and stashed away. Put that drive back in along with the remaining good drive and rebuild the array while you source a replacement for the bad drive. Granted, a second failure here would be bad, but then again a lot of RAID set ups aren't configur
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, how exactly is RAID counted? Yes, sure it's not a real backup solution but it's sufficient for simple consumers tight on cash. I've got the majority sitting on RAID 1 and the rest on RAID 5, excluding a couple gigs of scratch space not worth anything (downloads, temp)
I came to the realization about a year ago that the future of desktop storage, for my use, is going to have to be RAID. I'm dealing with such enormous amounts of stuff (mostly from digital photography and composed artwork) that I don't wish to play the "copy it here and there and guess which will fail first" game. Leave it to RAID 5 and just throw 3TB drives at it now and then.
Recently upgraded the whole desktop thing to 6 core CPU, 32GB memory, 6TB RAID 5, boot from 250GB SSD. It will seem extremely fas
Re: (Score:2)
RAID6 is fine for large capacity drives, at least if you replace the failed drive in a reasonable amount of time. We lose 3TB drives all the time and it only takes a day or so even for a full rebuild. The biggest problem with RAID5 and large capacity drives is the high chance of URE's during the rebuild which is where the second parity calculation (ideally diagonal) comes in.
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest problem with RAID5 and large capacity drives is the high chance of URE's during the rebuild which is where the second parity calculation (ideally diagonal) comes in.
That's all a bunch of FUD, as it assumes the URE rate reported by hard drive manufacturers to be a precise measurement. It's not. It's rounded down the nearest order of magnitude. Just look at how quickly drive manufacturers bumped up their claims from 10^14 to 10^15 following those articles. Now admittedly, I would never trust anything important to RAID5 if I didn't have backups, but to claim the data apocalypse is here is being disingenuous.
Re: (Score:2)
Given the rate of raid rebuild failures I'd say the manufacturers numbers are probably a bit optimistic. I don't know many colleagues who have been doing this for over a decade that haven't experienced at least one failed RAID rebuild.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yep I've got 9TB in RAID 5 (6TB usable). No backup other than RAID.
Too difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For a couple of TV shows? No I'm happy with RAID.
Yes for servers under my control they do upload to Amazon S3 in a different country every night.
Re: (Score:2)
You need a 9TB RAID for a "couple TV shows"?
Wow...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, considering that you're looking at ~1 GB per episode for a lot of shows (@720p) it adds up quickly. 10 shows, 20 episodes per season, only the two most recent seasons per show and you're already likely to need a 500 GB drive. Now, let's say you've got five seasons of a couple of these shows, seven of another, one show with 1.5-2 GB episodes...
Then you add a few movies into the mix, 20 movies at 6-8 GB each (1080p) and that's another couple of hundred gigs.
Re: (Score:2)
1GB? Try 4-6GB for ATSC/clear QAM. Of course I literally record more stuff than I have time to watch and I still only have about 1.5TB on the DVR.
Re: (Score:2)
meh. Beginners.
(see my comment below)
Re: (Score:2)
My television is so old that it chokes on anything less than 8 gigabytes per hour. Luckily, I have a dedicated 19.2 Mb/s wireless network.
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience getting a 90+ minute movie down to less than 3 GB @ 1080p leaves too many visible compression artifacts.
Unless you're talking animation it's pretty common to end up with just under 500 MB for a 20-minute episode of a TV show at 720p. Animation will generally compress better though (less than 250 MB per 20-minute episode for 720p is common).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
RAID is not a backup but it can be a target for a backup. Disk to disk to tape is a pretty common backup system. Real-time local backups to disk to safeguard against "Oopsie, I deleted the Marketing folder." Then back that up to tape and ship it off-site to safeguard against, "Oopsie, I burned down the building." If things ever get to the, "Oopsie, I turned the country into a glass parking lot", I have no plan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If things ever get to the, "Oopsie, I turned the country into a glass parking lot", I have no plan.
Out of country backups. Find a cloud far far from you.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are capable of that I am very disturbed by your lack of plan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
RAID 5 = 2 disks have to fail in a short period of time to lose data.
RAID 0 = 1 disk has to fail at any time to lose data.
I like the chances of 2 drives failing in a short period of time a hell of a lot more than 1 disk failing.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a backup for certain failure modes. If you are trying to protect against those failure modes (e.g. HDD failure) then it will work quite nicely.
I'm not trying to protect against deletion of files nor flood or fire.
If RAID wasn't a backup at all you wouldn't see it used on basically every single server.
People generally don't like rebuilding servers so RAID backs up against certain hardware failures.
Re:Over 50% = congratulations! you're a cheapskate (Score:4, Funny)
Rule of the thumb: Don't buy new hardware if your wallet is more than 50% empty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He said WALLET.
Now go stand on the corner of the corner of the room and think about what you've done.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not convinced.
IMO, expanding via RAID card is a bad idea. (Unless you need RAID for other legitimate reasons, such as redundancy/reliability, etc., and throw a lot of money at doing it right!)
RAID costs more energy. Say $10/year per SATA-internal disk, regardless of capacity. Assuming 24x7 power applied. Maybe a little lower with spin-down.
That may not sound like much, but it doesn't yet include the biggest cost of that additional energy -- heat. If your PC enclosure is remotely typical, its air cir
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
58 respondents with a sense of humor out of 1793
With a sense of humor or just over soft quota.
Re: (Score:2)
I keep my collectors edition of 0's and 1's on it! I keep meaning to organize them someday just so I know how much its worth, I swear!