After upgrading my internet connection I immediatelly noticed that my HDD tops 40 MB/s and bottlnecking download speed in qbittorrent. Is it possible to use SSD drive as a catch drive for 12 TB HDD so it uses SSD speeds when downloading and moves files to HDD later on? If yes, does it make sense? Anyone using anything simmilar? Would 512 GB be enough or could I benefit from 2TB SSD?

HDD is just for jellyfin (movies/shows), not in raid, dont need backup for that drive, I can afford risking data if that matters at all

All suggestions are welcome, Thx in advance

EDIT: I obviously have upset some of you, wasn’t my intention, I’m sorry about that. I love to tinker and learn new things, but I could live with much lower speeds tho… Please don’t hate me if I couldn’t understand your comment or not being clear with my question.

HDD being bottleneck at 40 MB/s was wrong assumption (found out in meantime). I’m still trying to figure out what was the reason for download to be that slow, but I’m interested in learning about the main question anyway. I just thought I’m experiencing the same issue like many people today, having faster internet than storage. Some of you provided solutions I will look into, but need time for that and also have to fix whatever else I’m having issue with.

Keep this community awesome because it is <3

  • rambos@lemm.eeOPEnglish
    51·
    4 months ago

    Yeah, but need to figure out how to see transfer speed using ssh. Sorry noob here :)

      • rambos@lemm.eeOPEnglish
        4·
        4 months ago

        I have managed to copy with rsync and getting 180 MB/s. I guess my initial assumption was wrong, HDD is obviously not bottleneck here, it can get close to ISP speed. Thank you for pointing this out, Ill do more testing these days. Im kinda shocked because I never knew HDD can be that fast. Gonna reread all the comments as well

        • ShortN0te@lemmy.mlEnglish
          2·
          3 months ago

          The limitation of HDDs was never sequential Read/Write when it comes to day to day use on a PC.

          The huge difference to an SSD is when data is written or read not sequentially, often referred to random I/O.

        • not_fond_of_reddit@lemm.eeEnglish
          2·
          4 months ago

          The cool thing about rsync is that it goes ”BRRRRRRRRR!” like a warthog… the plane… and it can saturate the receiving drive or array depending on your network and client. And getting 180 with rsync… on a SATA drive, can’t really hope for more.

          And you can run a quick n dirty test is using dd

          $> dd if=/dev/zero of=1g-testfile bs=1g count=1

          • rambos@lemm.eeOPEnglish
            2·
            4 months ago

            Thx. Ive seen dd commands in guides how to test drive speed, but I’m not sure how can I specify what drive I want to test. I see I could change “if” and “of”, but don’t trust myself enough to use my own modified commands before understanding them better. Will read more about that. Honestly I’m surprised drive speed test is not easier, but its probably just me still being noob xD

            • not_fond_of_reddit@lemm.eeEnglish
              2·
              4 months ago

              Let’s say you want to test a drive that is mounted on /tmp… you just cd into that directory and you can use my example.

              You can use

              $> df -h or $> mount

              to check how your drive is mounted in the OS Most ”default ” installations will have 1-4 partitions and / being partition 3 or 4.

              So if you look at the mount command and / is /dev/sdX3 (where X can be a-z depending on how many drives you have connected) and no other mounts are in the output then every directory under / is on that drive… so you can run my example from your home-directory if you fancy that.

              • rambos@lemm.eeOPEnglish
                1·
                4 months ago

                Thank you a lot for being patient with me :D

                dd if=/dev/zero of=1g-testfile bs=1G count=1
1+0 records in
1+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB, 1.0 GiB) copied, 4.62269 s, 232 MB/s

                This HDD is obviously working fine and much faster than I thought it can. I guess I have to find bottleneck elswhere