I'm looking for advice on whether Combine Mount options are applied globally or inherited to each child mount, and therefore which of these two following approaches could be the most 'optimal' (if there is such a thing!).
I have a half-dozen Dropbox drives configured, each with their own App ID configured. I have a separate SSD that I will use for VFS caching. Hosted server with a 10Gb link, content will be a mix of HD & 4K files so a range of sizes being uploaded+accessed. Total size has recently breached 100TB with many thousands of individual files.
I could either:
- Run as a Combine mount
- Only one systemd unit required, slightly easier to manage/maintain.
- I can set
--vfs-cache-max-sizeto 90% of the drive and call it a day, very simple and efficient utilisation of the space.
- I can only set mount options at the top level, such as
--tps-limit, and these would be applied globally across the whole combine mount and not per sub/child mount, so am limiting max potential utilisation?
- Run as individual mounts
- Multiple systemd units, minor difference in management.
- Would have to calculate and set
--vfs-cache-max-sizeindividually and would be much harder to allocate out and cache for longer locally without potentially stepping on each other's disk usage.
- Can set mount options on each drive for best theoretical limits available. Could help during Plex scans and so on as library is very large.
If my understanding is correct then they have their own advantages/drawbacks but I may be missing an aspect that swings it one way or the other, so looking for clarification or suggestions from the brain trust!