Search results for query: raidz padding

Why not just using your hardware raid + LVM Thin? You won't be able to do storage replication and won't have bit rot protection, but it's also a lighter filesystem without the challenges of ZFS padding loses and write amplification of RAIDz.

I will learn enough to manage the storage. But I just don't have the time to become an expert in the various configurations and benefits or drawbacks to each. Writing scripts for monitoring won't be a problem for me, I've worked in software engineering for over 20 years so when it comes to any...

Once you decided what storage to use you will have to learn how it works and how to administrate it and have a good backup strategy and disaster recovery plan. If not you will probably lose or at least risk your data sooner or later. There is for example no way to replace a failed ZFS disk via...

Why separate them? More disks mean better performance for everything. Or are you passing NVMe through to prevent ZFS/virtualization overhead? Raidz won't be great for IOPS performance in case your workload care about such things and comes with some additional limitations (padding overhead, you...

In general, this pool will not be very fast and concurrent access will be even slow. You're limited to one vdev, so the IOPS of one disk. You will also waste space due to padding with 8 disks. Please refer to this excellent post. Nevertheless, how fast was the download? Normally, downloading...

The OS needs no IOPS and only at max 8 GiB space, so IMHO a separate pool is way too much. It can however help if you need to reinstall everything if you can't solve a problem (mostly applies to people not familiar with Debian and Linux). In your special circumstances, you need to create two...

Actually, I said that. Every write to a Raidz is spread over every drive, so I claim that it needs to wait for each drive (when it's a sync write) and therfore the slowest one. ZFS update metadata and waits for it to complete befote doing the next change to guarantee data consistency. Maybe...

Yes. (Striped) Mirrors don't got padding overhead.

This could work reliabily if set up properly. Some recomendations: - Avoid ZFS raidz for VM workloads if possible, as you'll avoid wasting a lot of space due to padding and also get much lower performance. It's just a handful of VMs, but still. - Use two corosync links with different NICs...

This surprises people often, but raidz padding make data take more space than expected: https://forum.proxmox.com/search/6582756/?q=raidz+padding&o=date EDIT: Maybe this table can help: https://www.delphix.com/blog/zfs-raidz-stripe-width-or-how-i-learned-stop-worrying-and-love-raidz

I didn't understand what you want to tell me. raidz 10 is different from raid 10? what I want to do is a striped mirror

When doing that keep in mind that any raidz requires you to increase the blocksize if you don'T want to lose too much capacity due to padding overhead. In this case 16K or even 64K so running stuff like DBs won't be great that are doing small IO (8K = 50% capacity loss; 16K = 33% loss; 64K = 27%...

Yes one might fail without a problem. But before creating your first VM make sure to increase the "Block size" of the ZFS storage from 8K to 16K. Otherwise you will lose an additional TB due to padding overhead even if you can't see this directly. If you already created that VM you would need...

I'm quiat newby on this kind fo solutions I'm always use single disk. The best option is run ZFS with Mirror setup for the 8 NVME?

Any raidz won't be great if you need performance or a small block size (like when running DBs). A 8 disk raidz3 pool would require that you increase the block size from 8K (75% capacity loss) to 64K (43% capacity loss) or even 256K (38% capacity loss) or padding overhead will be big. And IOPS...

Really bad idea. Raidz is pretty terrible for storing VMs. You either have to increase the Volblocksize so running DBs will suck or padding overhead will waste tons of space. Also won't help with IOPS performance as this scales with number of vdevs and not number of disks. And consumer SSDs...

raidZ1 will not give you anything near 4TB when using three drives of 2TB. Please search the forum for ZFS raidz padding; you might be better of with a 2x2TB mirror. Also, if you device to buy cheap consumer QLC SSDs, you'll waste your money. Please search the forum about QLC and learn about...

Upsi. Sry ;) Also aktuell sind es 6 3TB Platten. Diese sollen natürlich später mal ausgetauscht werden in größere. Es werden aber nie mehr als 6, da das System nicht mehr her gibt. Wie gesagt hauptsächlich liegen da Office-Dokumente, Pdf und Images rum. Quasi der ganze Plunder, der unter eigene...

Genau (also mal abgesehen von TB statt GB ;) ). Ob Raidz1/2 eine Option für dich ist hängt von verschiedenem ab: - Willst du einfach Disks hinzufügen können? Bei Raidz schwierig. - Willst du Disks entfernen können? Bei Raidz nicht möglich. - Willst du viele kleine Dateien speichern? Mit Raidz...

Not a real expert here, but AFAIK compression doesn't matter on padding, as padding is applied after compressing data. Using compression will potentially make the data to write smaller, so zfs apply padding to the amount of data you really write. Even if that write will need to use a few extra...