I'm just getting started on my first setup. I've got radarr, sonarr, prowlarr, jellyfin, etc running in docker and reading/writing their configs to a 4TB external drive.

I followed a guide to ensure that hardlinks would be used to save disk space.

But what happens when the current drive fills up? What is the process to scale and add more storage?

My current thought process is:

Mount a new drive
Recreate the data folder structure on the new drive
Add the path to the new drive to the jellyfin container
Update existing collections to look at the new location too
Switch (not add) the volume for the *arrs data folder to the new drive

Would that work? It would mean the *arrs no longer have access to the actual downloaded files. But does that matter?

Is there an easier, better way? Some way to abstract away the fact that there will eventually be multiple drives? So I could just add on a new drive and have the setup recognize there is more space for storage without messing with volumes or app configs?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

When you get a new drive, you could move some of your library to it, like just the movies or tv or whatever. Then you only need to update one library.

Are you using Linux? You could set it up to mount the new drive into the existing file structure. That way you would not have to change any configurations.

It might also be handy to configure Jellyfin to save the nfo metadata with the media files so it doesn’t have to re match everything if the path changes.

I definitely had data indexed at /Mount/driveA/movies and when I moved it to driveB it was a bit of a pain.

In the long run you might want to invest in a NAS or something. That way you can just add more drives as needed.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

NASes don't do anything you can't setup yourself, and their price-to-benefit ratio is absolute trash. The only reason you should ever buy one is if you are completely tech illiterate.

Otherwise, build one. If that's what you meant, agreed. Having one is absolutely worth it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Begging my ISP to give me root access to the router they gave me so that I can set up one with a USB-SATA adapter and no additional equipment. (I already use SMB shared folders but they are a mess)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Routers make for terrible NASes.

But, you could do what my dad does, he chains his own router after the ISP provided one so he has full control of the second one in the chain.

My solution was to buy a router-modem that was compatible with the internet type my ISP provides, and ditch their piece of crap entirely.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I’m willing to put up with low capacity, no backups and USB 2.0 speeds but thanks for the advice.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I mean, all I said was they should think about “investing in a NAS”, whether you buy a Synology or build your own TrueNAS or whatever it will take more hardware than plugging in more usb drives.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Googling off of this response, I think you're right that an NAS is the best solution long term. And in terms of a fully scalable system, I saw that I can create a Distributed File System of multiple NAS systems to even further scale. So thank you

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Awesome, I upgraded my Jellyfin box from a Mac Mini with a bunch of usb drives attached, to a Synology 920+ and I have been really happy with it. I upgraded the ram on it and it runs Jellyfin along with the *arr containers just fine.

As someone else said you can also build your own if you want. Both solutions will allow for easy scaling in the future as you need.