On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 2:16 PM Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > <SNIP> > > Hard to believe no one has more up to date info on what is safe given > drives are so large now and file system improvements. I'd think having > a TB or two would be plenty, regardless of percentage, but not real > sure. Don't want to risk data testing the theory either. > > Update: The new drive came in. It passed all the tests and is online. > dfc looks like this now for Data. >
OK, I hate to even try to answer this, and first, I have no storage design experience but I suspect it depends a lot on YOUR usage. I see Rich provided an answer while I was writing this so you'll want to follow any advice he might have given. He's smart. I'm not. My guess is that while you 'store' a lot of data you don't actually 'change' a lot of data. For instance, in the past, you seemed to be download YouTube videos. If you've saved them, never to watch them or change them, then other than protecting yourself from losing them, they go onto the disk and never move. If that's your usage model I don't know why you can't go right up to 100% minus just a little. (Say 10x the size of your average file) After all, you could always remove a few files to temp storage, optimize the disk and then re-add the files. On the other hand, if you're deleting files in the middle of the drive I could see cases where new files get fragmented and stuff you put on late in life gets strewn around the drive which doesn't sound great. In a completely different usage case, like you're running a bunch of databases that are filling your drive, removing old records, adding new records all the time, then depending on how your disk optimizations run you might need a huge amount of space to gather the databases back together. However even in that case you could move a complete database to a temp location, optimize the drive and then re-add the database. So, as is often the case, in my mind...IT DEPENDS! ;-) Best wishes, Mark
