I think the title says it all, but I’ll elaborate a little.
I have dietpi_userdata on the SSD, destination directories for processed files are on Window’s shares on another server.
Everything is working fine.
If the db files for the -arr apps are already on the SSD with the userdata, is there any advantage to shifting them to RAM as (as I read it) this script does? I’d like to keep the SD card doing as little as possible, but not at the expense of stability. As it is, it takes <5s for Sonarr to load up the database when I access through the web portal.
Sorry if this has been asked before; I really did search for other posts.
Erik
Hi,
many thanks for your question. Well, in generell RAM will be always faster than disk access. If you are ok with speed, you can leave it as it. On a SSD it might not have that much advantage compare to a HDD but it could as well reduce r/w operation to keep your SSD healthy.
https://dietpi.com/forum/t/dietpi-arr-to-ram-link-sonarr-radarr-lidarr-database-files-to-ram/3120/1
This feature is mainly addressed to SDcard systems, where reads/writers are often much slower then SSD or even modern HDD and which start to produce data corruption much earlier. Second to allow external userdata drives to spindown since this database is written to very regularly. For an SSD I don’t see much reason, only for perfectionists who want to reduce drive writes to an absolute minimum.