Use SSDs for cache instead of ZFS or RAID levels.
Use SSDs for cache instead of ZFS or RAID levels.
Back then on my server, I was thinking about data caching methods—lancache and steamcache. Some friends recommended using a top-tier HDD with ZFS or going true to the source for improved speed. Ultimately, I chose Samsung M.2 SSDs and regular SSDs in RAID 0 for my LAN cache. A few of my friends noticed my setup and wondered why I didn’t just convert it to ZFS so I wouldn’t have to deal with that. In my view, SSDs are simpler for LAN caching or Steam storage. More costly, sure, but plugging them in and assigning the cache pool is straightforward. Why complicate things with HDD formatting and raiding cache data when an SSD or three drives would suffice? Some might say my Steam cache isn’t fully protected, but I can manually copy it to the array for backups using Unraids’ file lookup. I’m not trying to save money; I just prefer SSDs. I’ve also built a local LAN network with 2.5Gbps capability. What I really want is feedback from others. This was purely because I could. SSDs seemed the easiest option. I’ve stored my entire Steam library on SSDs—about 6.2TB total.
you possess unusual companions offering questionable guidance. your performance will be constrained by the ethernet bandwidth before you achieve SATA SSD or 4+HDD array speeds, making this your primary planning or future readiness objective. If you’re similar to the majority using gigabit LAN, aim for 100MB/s; deploying multiple HDDs in ZFS or Raid5 could overwhelm your network transfer rate or any SATA SSD. NVMe devices deliver 30-40x faster than LAN connections. When adopting TrueNAS/FreeNAS, consider RaidZ-1 or -2 to protect against drive failures while maintaining overall speed, then utilize SSDs as a read buffer. Also, the GitHub repo for lancachenet/steamcache has been updated to 'Monolithic'; you might want to switch accordingly because SteamCache is no longer supported. Since you shared it, checking the steamcache array shows the 970 evo units paired with an 870 4TB drive. If your setup includes both SATA and NVMe devices, you’ll face speed variations as NVMe writes and reads outpace LAN capabilities; any data spread across all three should be accessed via SATA speeds. Although this isn’t a problem now, it was a significant challenge when SSDs first emerged and people attempted SSD+HDD configurations.
I experienced erratic download and delivery problems only with those two NVMe drives. After adding a third drive, the 870 EVO 4TB, the performance issues have eased considerably. The network speed on my local system barely reaches its potential, but the difference is minimal. I attribute these fluctuations to peculiarities in container software, coding quirks, or how certain games are compressed and delivered through Steam. No matter how many times I download, the speed remains poor. From what I observe, having more drives spreads the workload, making data transfer smoother. The image I shared of my LAN setup reflects this balanced performance across all drives. My server runs an i7 8700K with a Z370 board. With a 2.5Gb LAN connection, it appears the cache works best when all three drives are active. I noticed the Docker version I’m using is outdated and took considerable time to configure. This makes me anxious about adopting new standards without proper support. You’re right—I have access to gigabit internet, which is the fastest residential connection in Australia. That’s a rare advantage for me.
It seems the network controller struggled with packet loss while transferring data to the m.2 drives, likely due to writing too quickly and missing expected responses from the drives. This issue is more common in network controllers than CPUs. Using an NVMe cache paired with an HDD ZFS setup could offer a balanced solution—ZFS speeds things up compared to 2.5G, and caching reads on NVMe should minimize packet problems. For redundancy, ZFS’s features are useful but not essential for a cache server; they add value when combined with RAID for performance gains. In some cases, 2.5G networking might handle remote game drives smoothly without affecting load times much. Latency could be slightly higher, but the system would remain responsive. You might consider running an older system as a persistent Steam update hub, letting other systems handle updates instead of waiting.
Sorry for the mix-up, I'm not relying on the cache while playing. It's only for saving game data and storage. Later I can be downloaded through Steam or my cache if needed. All gaming stays on my main system—a 5800x3d/asus rog strix x570-e. I usually download and remove games, though... Your suggestion really sparked an idea, pointing to Steam’s cache library. Guess that’s actually something I hadn’t considered before, haha. Edited December 31, 2022 by Madmaximus01
Begin evaluation right away and reply soon. Updated: December 31, 2022 by Madmaximus01
I've saved and tried tiny tinas wonderlands; the cache download got slowed down... since the cache/pool was writing back to itself... but I didn't notice any change. It looked totally fine overall, just a slight delay in texture loading after initial load. Probably only a few seconds difference. Updated on Dec 31, 2022 by Madmaximus01
I've tried this with a second game, Ready or Not, which is still not very well optimized or a triple-A title like Tiny Tinas Wonderland. RoN appears to be greatly affected by loading times. I think games that load all graphics shaders at the start of boot would perform much better than those that don't. It seems Ready or Not doesn't handle this well, probably loading shaders level by level instead of all at once on first boot. Edited December 31, 2022 by Madmaximus01
This idea doesn’t really work. Just put the SSDs in your PC and keep them ready at all times, avoiding the need for a local cache. Lanchecache only makes sense if you have many users or poor internet speeds and can’t afford enough storage, but you’re looking for a way to use old hardware to speed things up without relying on slow connections. If you already have your Steam library cached locally, just connect them to your desktop and install them quickly.
I fully grasp why this seems illogical for an individual or a house with more than one person. My motivation comes from the ability to do it and the overall excitement involved. After learning that proper game installation is feasible on my server, I’m thinking about purchasing two additional 4TB SSDs and setting up another pool for them. Just because I can doesn’t mean it makes sense—either financially or logically. I’m proceeding because I want to and because I need all the internet available.