@cyberjock Heh. I thought he was doing a pretty decent job of trying to not only follow the warnings, but also your hardware sticky.
@DGX More ram is always going to be better. I paid little attention to that spec, simply because I don't know your workload. Rules of thumb on GB per TB of storage are more complicated than sometimes assumed. That can work in your favor, or against you, imho. I often assume (YEP @SS U ME) that cost cutters are pursuing media loads, and lightly accessed even rarely accessed files. So we have random and "one-off" sequential loads with little chance of hitting our cache. If there was a place where ARC matters least... that is it.
You'll note I don't mind offering an opinion on 'optimal' disk numbers and recommended testing, power supplies and hardware etc. I refrained from commenting one way or another on the memory discussion. I don't disagree with pharfar, but do see the problem as more intricate. In theory 8GB min... blah blah blah. In practice RAM is maxed on my board for good reason and I would double it if I could. ;)
16GB is a pretty well known sweet spot. But I will admit, that I was pretty certain I'd seen cyber comment that 8GB should be stable... though not necessarily great for performance. But unlikely to randomly drop a pool like <8GB. He is welcome to correct me on that.
@DGX More ram is always going to be better. I paid little attention to that spec, simply because I don't know your workload. Rules of thumb on GB per TB of storage are more complicated than sometimes assumed. That can work in your favor, or against you, imho. I often assume (YEP @SS U ME) that cost cutters are pursuing media loads, and lightly accessed even rarely accessed files. So we have random and "one-off" sequential loads with little chance of hitting our cache. If there was a place where ARC matters least... that is it.
You'll note I don't mind offering an opinion on 'optimal' disk numbers and recommended testing, power supplies and hardware etc. I refrained from commenting one way or another on the memory discussion. I don't disagree with pharfar, but do see the problem as more intricate. In theory 8GB min... blah blah blah. In practice RAM is maxed on my board for good reason and I would double it if I could. ;)
16GB is a pretty well known sweet spot. But I will admit, that I was pretty certain I'd seen cyber comment that 8GB should be stable... though not necessarily great for performance. But unlikely to randomly drop a pool like <8GB. He is welcome to correct me on that.
