this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
26 points (96.4% liked)

Selfhosted

49796 readers
406 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
ruud@lemmy.world
Loki@lemmy.world
CannaVet@lemmy.world
HybridSarcasm@lemmy.world
devve@lemmy.world
HybridSarcasm@lemmy.hybridsarcasm.xyz
26
Replacing drive with a larger drive in zfs (lemm.ee)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by MostlyGibberish@lemm.ee to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
5 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)

all 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] tvcvt@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I haven’t seen any deleterious effects from what you’re proposing and I haven’t heard of any either. Were it me, I’d go for it.

[–] socphoenix@midwest.social 4 points 2 years ago

Agreed. It’s not a safety issue it just won’t use the full drives capacity until they replace the other smaller drives

[–] walden@sub.wetshaving.social 2 points 2 years ago

I have mismatched drives. Mostly 8TB, and 2 10TB. The 10TB are simply wasted money, but no other downsides.

[–] btobolaski@threads.ruin.io 2 points 2 years ago

I run my Truenas Scale with 5 mirror vdevs. This is sort of like raid 10 (I don't need the differences explained to me). This means that I get 50% of the raw storage as usable but, it means that to upgrade space, I only need to upgrade two drives at a time. It also means that replacing a failed drive is fast, much faster than replacing a drive from a raidz* vdev. As you move to Truenas, this is something to consider. Given that you're going to have 4 drives total, I don't think you'd be wasting any additional space as you shouldn't consider raidz safe (same problem as raid 5, high risk of second drive failure during rebuild) which leaves you at raidz2.