Use SSDs for cache instead of ZFS or RAID levels.
Use SSDs for cache instead of ZFS or RAID levels.
But… you’re actually making things worse. There’s no reason to intentionally slow things down when you have the opportunity to work smarter. A homelab offers many possibilities because you can experiment freely. I run a homelab—I get it. But neither of us would suggest doing something poorly just because it’s possible. You could install a 32GB boot SSD on your PC, load all programs and games from an iSCSI mount on the server, or even skip local storage entirely and rely on network-based solutions. But this approach doesn’t add value since you’re limiting yourself. I’d recommend exploring tools like Home Assistant for home automation, which can genuinely enhance your experience instead of hindering it. Also, clarify what “having all the internet” means—your Steam library is already cached locally. It would be more practical to install everything centrally rather than relying on distributed caching. And remember, SMB isn’t designed for high-performance workloads; using it here would introduce unnecessary network delays compared to local operation.
I'm getting familiar with home assistant automation. I've created an automation that checks if I'm at home, then powers on my PC and logs in so everything's set up before I start working. I've only tried two games yet. The first one, Tiny Tinas Wonderland, was installed on my server. It seemed to load a bit slower on the server compared to my PC, but that's probably just a minor difference. I'm not sure why it feels so odd. I'm spending time figuring out what works and what doesn't with my setup. If I find other games that run equally well on my PC while using the server for installation, I'll try them. If not, I'll accept it as a one-off success. I plan to add two extra 4TB SSDs to my server for better game storage. I'm also thinking about upgrading my local network speed to 10Gbps. Edit: I realize my goal is likely limited to single-player games for optimal results. Edit 2: My server is in the living room, my PC in the bedroom. The cable runs from the ethernet port in the living room to my PC and other rooms are about 10-20 meters (32-65 feet) away. All connections are Cat 6. Edit 3: Some people think I'm doing "cloud gaming," but that's not true. My PC handles the processing and computing. Steam is just pointing to a library folder on my server. By having all the internet, I'm just joking about downloading 6TB of data in a few days to fill up my cache. My ISP even called me to ask if I have a business and want their cheaper enterprise plans. They seemed surprised I was downloading so much personal data! Apparently, last month I was the second highest user for domestic usage in Australia—LMAO!
I've tried several titles on my server, putting them there myself. Still using my PC for performance, not cloud services, to experience them as I would normally. So far, single-player games seem mostly fine and flawless, which supports what I thought. Tiny Tinas Wonderland and Halo Infinite are examples that run perfectly, indistinguishable. I think Halo Infinite was particularly challenging to set up. I wouldn't have installed it for long—about four years later, probably—but I had to transfer the existing files from my PC to the server. That process succeeded. After that, everything worked smoothly; the game launches, loads, and runs exactly as expected on my PC. The 2.5G network I set up at home seems to be a key factor in this. One observation is that games with many small files during download struggle on my server (which is why copying from my PC helped). To be clear, this is just for learning and testing what's possible. I'm essentially a PC and networking hobbyist exploring the limits. Edited January 1, 2023 by Madmaximus01
Thanks for the encouragement and the fresh perspective on working with my server. I agree your approach of running games fully installed via Steam is reliable and effective most of the time. A few titles I've tried on the server don't behave as expected—shaders may not load properly at once, and some games feel sluggish or incomplete. These issues seem more common with less optimized titles. Updated January 1, 2023 by Madmaximus01
Because SMB struggles with high IOPS, your 2.5gb has little impact since the bottleneck lies in the protocol itself. SATA was built for rapid, low-latency connections and has now shifted to NVMe. SMB operates quite differently—like a completely separate universe. That’s why your approach seems misguided. If you aim to gain real skills, explore iSCSI instead. Mounting remote storage this way removes many network delays. It’s still not ideal compared to directly connecting SSDs to your gaming PC, but it could be a valuable step if you’re serious about networking and system design. This isn’t unusual; enterprises do use SMB for sharing, yet they rarely rely on it. While I support being curious, it’s important to grasp what works and what doesn’t.
I approached this exactly as most would expect. Of course it wouldn't work, how absurd of me! I shook my head and laughed at myself for that foolish idea, but I decided to try it out. To my complete surprise, it worked perfectly—files on my server were playing flawlessly. What? I was certain it wouldn’t. Still, it’s functioning. I was anticipating disappointment and self-deprecation, but instead it exceeded expectations. Now I’m motivated to upgrade my home network to 10Gbps from the current 2.5Gbps to explore further improvements. I’ll investigate iSCSI. I already know which games generate many small files that could cause major slowdowns on my server; I’ve cached every game multiple times over the past six months. I’ve also found ways to reduce the impact. My main worry is whether a game installed directly on the server would be so seamless that even someone using it wouldn’t notice it’s hosted locally. The consensus is clear—yes, it’s fully playable and nearly invisible. —Edited January 2, 2023 by Madmaximus01 additional info added
Why are you relying on a cache? The main reason for using a Steam cache is to streamline downloads across multiple gaming devices connected to the same network. This way, everyone gets the games simultaneously, so you only need to download them once and install them quickly on all machines. If you have just one gaming PC, store all your games there and keep them installed instead of using a cache that adds unnecessary steps. The main advantage is faster updates when you actually need them, but it might be more than what you require.
You’re overlooking a crucial aspect entirely. Your approach is unnecessarily hindering performance. This would be similar to purchasing an i7 processor but disabling half its cores, or using an RTX 4080 without proper power management—just because you can. Why intentionally lower speed? And regarding the LAN cache, it’s about reducing downloads and easing ISP strain. That’s completely unrelated. If you store SSDs inside your gaming PC, downloading would become unnecessary. Instead of relying on NAS connections, a local setup would be significantly faster and much more efficient. Also, why are you consuming so much data? It looks like you’re repeatedly deleting games and re-downloading them—home users shouldn’t be downloading multiple terabytes monthly. I manage a 40TB home lab and have a clear idea of what an “overkill” user would do in terms of bandwidth. I recommend evaluating your actions carefully and choosing a strategy that truly makes sense. Just follow that plan. *Your current method isn’t working*.
I’m currently running smoothly. My system performance remains consistent with no slowdowns. All my installed games on the server are functioning perfectly as expected. I don’t plan to add multiplayer titles that need online connectivity; I stick to single-player experiences. I’m also thinking about setting up a personal Plex media server, which would likely increase my internet usage. You mentioned there should be no issue for someone using a domestic connection like mine. Despite paying for unlimited and gigabit plans, I feel confident in my data allowance. My concerns are mainly about the negative feedback from my ISP. I believe I’m entitled to use as much bandwidth as I desire since I pay for it. I understand they might disagree, but I’m trying to resolve this on my own. The single-player games I have installed are performing flawlessly—no lag, no interruptions, and everything runs at full frame rate. My PC handles the processing independently, just like it would if the game was running locally. All metrics—CPU, GPU, temperatures—are within normal ranges. This is essentially a trial-and-learning phase; I’m confident it will work. I’ve already taken steps to address any complaints from my ISP. The idea of using a Plex server won’t change much for me either, but I’m open to trying it anyway.