this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
27 points (96.6% liked)

Selfhosted

40183 readers
945 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
ruud@lemmy.world
Loki@lemmy.world
CannaVet@lemmy.world
HybridSarcasm@lemmy.world
devve@lemmy.world
HybridSarcasm@lemmy.hybridsarcasm.xyz
27
Replacing drive with a larger drive in zfs (lemm.ee)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by MostlyGibberish@lemm.ee to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
7 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Hi all!

I'm in the process of migrating my home server from Unraid to TrueNAS with a ZFS pool, as well as upping storage from 2 6TB drives to 4. Unfortunately, because of either my bad luck or incompetence, it seems like one of the drives has died. So, here's my question. I've read up a bit on resilvering and I know that if I replace the dead drive with a larger drive, the pool will be unable to use that extra space until the remaining drives are upgraded, but would there be any other drawbacks? Especially if the pool was left running in this configuration for an extended period.

I definitely see myself upgrading the pool to larger drives in the future, and it would be nice to save myself buying an extra drive that may end up getting replaced before the end of its life. (Note: I'm aware that resilvering isn't the safest way of upgrading a pool, but the data on the pool is either backed up or non-essential, so I'm fine with the risks)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] yote_zip@pawb.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not an expert, but as far as I know running with mismatched drives isn't bad - it's just a pointless long-term configuration.

Are you planning on mirroring the drives? If you upgrade to 4 drives in the future you could just do 2 mirror vdevs with mismatched drive sizes per vdev. Also I'm surprised you're bothering with 6TB drives - you can get 14TB very cheap nowadays (recertified).

[–] MostlyGibberish@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I looked at doing two vdevs but was put off by the lower usable storage. At a certain point, maybe that's not as important as I think though.

Yeah, the choice for 6TB wasn't my best. I got the two older drives a few years back on a Newegg flash sale, and it seemed like plenty, especially considering Unraid's model of 1 parity drive and 100% usable storage on the data drive(s). Then, when I decided to upgrade, I was too cheap to go buy 4 whole new drives, so I just went with more of what I already had (to add insult to injury, they're all WD Red drives...).

[–] yote_zip@pawb.social 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah lower usable storage sucks, but it's an okay trade at the moment given its flexibility. raidz expansion is always "right around the corner" but never actually arrives - if it's merged a raidz array might make more sense for a smaller NAS.

Personally I've found that if you're really budget-conscious or have a low number of disks, MergerFS+SnapRAID backed by BTRFS disks is a better choice for flexibility (very similar to an Unraid setup), since you can add/remove at any time, and they can be mismatched drive sizes.