cross-posted from: https://feddit.de/post/427796
> This is the second try (original post: https://feddit.de/post/426890) of me trying to get an answer, this time I'll be more specific of what I am thinking to do. I thought a more generalized question would be enough. Sorry for that.
>
> A peertube server needs lots of storage. Many of the videos will hardly get any views. Storage space on a vps is pretty expensive, storage space in general isn't cheap. So my thought was to
>
> have a disk at home (maybe external disk on a raspberry pi) and a VPS.
>
> The VPS only has a very limited amount of storage, but is otherwise totally able to run peertube well. So why not have a virtual file system on the VPS, which looks like it has the size of the HDD and it uses a specified amount of the vps storage for caching. So if someone watches a popular part of a popular video, the vps can serve the video content from the local disk. If someone wants to watch the video that nobody ever watches, it's not a problem since the uplink from home can easily deliver that as well, without the video taking the precious storage.
> Block caching would be best, since file caching wouldn't be ideal with video files being really big in some cases. So a very long video would fill the cache, even if only parts of it are needed.
>
> The remote storage doesn't need to be from home of course, could be cheap cloud storage. I know that peertube works with s3, but it will only move transcoded videos into a bucket and then serve them directly from there. I don't want that from home, it would also not use the upload performance of the VPS for popular videos.
>
> Any thoughts? Good idea or not?
>
> I have worked with bcache in the past and was always very impressed with the performance, I think my scenario could really work.
wtf xD