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
    24·
    3 months ago

    But that would first download to SSD, then move to HDD and then become available (arr import) on jellyfin server, making it slower than not using SSD. Am I missing something?

    • braindefragger@lemmy.worldEnglish
      61·
      3 months ago

      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?

      Is that not what you asked for?

      • rambos@lemm.eeOPEnglish
        2·
        3 months ago

        Well yes, but I was hoping files can be available (imported to media server) before they are moved to HDD. Import is not possible from incomplete directory if I understood that correctly (*arr stack)

    • Maxy@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      2·
      3 months ago

      It depends what you’re optimising for. If you want a single (relatively small) download to be available on your HDD as fast as possible, then your current setup might be better (optimising for lower latency). However, if you want to be maxing out your internet speeds at all time and increase your HDD speeds by making the copy sequential (optimising for throughput), then the setup with the catch drive will be better. Keep in mind that a HDD’s sequential write performance is significantly higher than its random write performance, so copying a large file in one go will be faster than copying a whole bunch of random chunks in a random order (like torrents do). You can check the difference for yourself by doing a disk benchmark and comparing the sequential vs random writes of your drive.

      • rambos@lemm.eeOPEnglish
        2·
        3 months ago

        Thank you. The files I download are usually 5-30 GB size. I don’t want to max out my internet speed, I just want to get the files in media library ASAP after requesting download manually (happens maybe few times a week)

        It makes sense, Ill test sequential and random write performance and maybe even test it since I have the hardware available.

        At first I wasn’t aware that my speed is super low for HDD, therefore I was looking for some magic solution with SSD speeds and HDD storage that might not even exist. I have to do more testing for sure