Search results for query: ZFS fragment

Sorry, should be "2 * 0.4GB/s / 15 ports = 53MB/s bandwidth per disk" but when hitting the pool with heavy load you should still be capped by the bandwidth of the PCIe lanes and not by the performance of the HDDs. Two cheap LSI SAS2008 would do the job with their PCIe 2.0 8x for 8 SATA ports...

i set the quota with this command is correct? And how to set monitoring to send email when exceed 80%?

Not sure but have a read on ZFS basics. A ZFS pool will be come slower and fragment faster the more you fill it and above 90% it will switch to a slower allocation mode. So when dimensioning your pool you should buy more storage to compensate this. A Rule of thumb is to not fill your pool more...

Thank you Dunuin! This was really helpful. I've set the blocksize to 16k and was able to use ~9750 GB of my pool! Thank you for the references, I will use refer to this guide first next time :) I was aware of TB vs TiB. It seems that because of the zfs pool blocksize, I am more restricted than...

Search this forum for "padding overhead". In short: When using a 4 disk raidz1 with the default 8K volblocksize you will lose half of the raw capacity when using VM virtual disks (zvols)...

7x 1TB disks in raidz1 with the default 8K volblocksize would result in 3,5TB of usable space for zvols and because a ZFS pool will become slow and fragment faster when filling it up too much only 2.8 - 3.15 TB (80-90%) should be used. And thats TB, so only 2.55 - 2.86 TiB. To not waste half of...

Okay I would need your help choosing the right LSI HBA card and SSD disks, here are a few links, just let me know which one do you think is the right to buy: LSI HBA card LSI SAS 9210-8i 8-port 6Gb/s PCIe HBA RAID SATA Controller card New LSI Internal SAS SATA 9211-8i 6Gbps 8 Ports HBA PCI-E...

Then I don't see a good solution without buying new hardware. 4x 10TB disks only allow you to store ~27TB of data as a ZFS pool shouldn't be filled more than 80-90% because otherwise it might get slow and will fragment faster when filled more than 90% (and you can't defrag it because its...

And best not to fill up your pool too much. The more filled your pool is, the fast it will fragment. Are you sure, you are not mixing this with the 128K recordsize? As far as I know TrueNAS will default to different volblocksizes depending on your pool layout...

You are provisioning virtual RAM to the VMs, not physical RAM. The KVM process that virtualizes your VM is needing some ressources too. And in case you use some caching like writeback it also needs the more of the hosts RAM, the more you write, for caching. In case you use ZFS, that will need...

As far as I know that is hardcoded. And you shouldn't fill a vdev that much anyway. The ZFS documentation recommends not to fill a pool more than 80% for best performance. If you fill it too much it will fragment and become slow.

Also keep in mind that a ZFS pool shouldn't be filled more than 80% or it can't operate optimally. It will become slow and fragment faster, which is bad, as you can't defrag a ZFS pool (your Pool is already heavily fragmented: "rpool fragmentation 58%"). So yes, I would delete stuff until you...

Yes, they will dynamically share the full 62TB, unless you set a quota for those datasets. But keep in mind that a ZFS pool shouldn't be filed more than 80% or it will become slow and fragment faster (which is bad as you can't defrag a ZFS pool). So if your pool shows a 62TB capacity, you...

In case you are using ZFS its ARC might use up to 50% of your RAM, so 32GB, in case you didn't limited it manually. And then make sure to differentiate between GB and GiB. Your VMs got 50/6 GiB of RAM and not GB. 56 GiB = 60,13 GB. And then a VM will need more RAM than you assign to that VM, as...

Then I would make sure that the "Thin Provisioning" checkbox is set at "Datacenter -> Storage -> ZFS-Data -> Edit" as well, so you don't waste space when a VM/LXC isn't using it. And I also would set a pool-wide quota, so you can never completely fill the pool by accident. zfs set quota=1.96T...

But ZFS got a lot of overhead with its copy-on-write. Virtualization got overhead. Nested filesystems got overhead. Raid creates overhead. SSDs technically always got a lot of write amplificaton, especially when doing small sync writes like a database would do. And all this overhead isn`t adding...

As already said, 20% of the capacity should always be kept free. So ZFS isn't a good option for you if you plan to fill it up to 95%. Above 80% the pool will get slow and start to fragment faster. ZFS is a copy-on-write filesystem, so you can't defragment it. If you fill it above 90% it will...

Best would be to add 2 small mirrored SSDs as "special metdata devices". That way HDDs would only need to store data and all metadata would be stored on the small SSDs. This would increase IOPS for reads+async writes+sync write. I think it made my HDDs about 2-3 times faster, because the HDDs...

And I highly recommend that you set a quota of 90%. You should monitor your pool and keep the used space below 80% or the pool will become slow and will fragment faster which is bad, as ZFS is a copy-on-write filesystem that can't be defragmented (only option to "defrag" it is to move data of...

First you should expand that pool way earlier beforesit is full. A ZFS pool always should have 20% of free space left otherwise it will become slow and fragment faster. And yes, with that new feature you could add a single disk to get more capacity. But adding a new disk won't increase any...