Run Seafile on a WD Gold 128MB 7200rpm?

I’m currently running Ubuntu 16.04 in Hyper-V and the installation are on a SSD.
ANd I have mounted a VHDX that are hosting the DATA and it’s on a WD Gold.

But, when I’m trying to do backup on the VM the Ubuntu VM are getting kernel panics, that’s due to a known issue if you have mounted an other VHDX or DVD rom in to the existing VM.
This is a Hyper-V issue and not a Seafile issue.
But it does effect me as I can’t do backups on the hole VM, and I love to do that as then I can just restore the hole VM if it crashes.
I do only backup once every night at 3AM.

SO I’m wondering if it’s possible to run the hole system on the WD Gold disk in a VM?
Totally skipp the SSD, would I notice some performence loss?
THe Gold disk have 7200rpm with 128MB cache so it should run fine I guess.

We only have 5 users on it.

Im running WD RED so I Guess it’s OK. And it’s better have for seafile HDD instead of SSD, cause alot of disk operation and it can kill your SSD after some time.

I’ll do a re-install later then, once again thanks!

True Point, seafile does alot disk operation but due to the same it is of course causing an immense IO-Wait, too! Thats one only “big” Problem i’m having with the system.
If you actually want to supply quite many users by HDD on a single System you at least need a RAID10 with 4 disks.
(Or you tell me how my Raid-1 could get any better… would be appreciated :relieved:)
Then thats a good “way through the middle” in comparison to SSD.
But I’m with you also don’t wanna pay the price for an 4TB SSD ^^

I’m currently running it on one single WD red, and I’m maxing my internet speed at 250/250Mbit but I’m only 3 users on my server so.

I think there is option with disk with bigger cache or SSHD. But ofcourse if you or your company have money then I recommend SSD. But there is one big problem, some one could say it’s better with RAID-1 for backup, but if you have same SSH in raid sometimes both goes down in same time cause there’s is same read/write operations which damage it in same way.

Anyway if Calby as about that, I think he don’t want to spend more money and have only 5 users, so his configuration is OK.

I’m a server technician and I just feel the need to correct you, raid is never a backup, raid is only redudans.
You can never trust raid for backup, you only use raid to have so much uptime as possible.

And regarding the Raid-1, make sure that you buy the hdd’s from two different batches from the manufacturer.

I’m always running backup on a separate disk, and also a off-site backup.

I’m thinking of updating the WD Red to the WD Red pro with bigger cache to 128MB and 7200rpm.
The WD Gold was not good as Seafile disk as the r/w was not good and the noice from the disk was terrible.

You get it wrong, but redundat = backup. It’s HW backup, so if main disk fail system will run from second. If you run bigger server with more services you need this. If your company can wait hours for your repair then you can use just file backup to another disk, NAS, cloud or whatever. But if you need to run without shutdown or server drop(if some disk fail) you need raid. For me is best solution is RAID 10(RAID 1+0) but it’s little bit expensive.

I’m guessing that my english are not so good, because what you did just write is what I mean.
At my work I’m (we) are using RAID-10 when I did start there they did use RAID-5 but I did change it to Raid-10.

Just use Veeam and do VM backups.
There are also free version out there.

I’m using Microsoft server backup and it works greate. :slight_smile: