Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6

[Frank Steinmetzger <Warp_7@gmx.de>]

On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 07:54:41AM +0000, Richard Bradfield wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 06:35:10PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Frank Steinmetzger <Warp_7@gmx.de> wrote:
> >>
> >>I don’t really care about performance. It’s a simple media archive powered
> >>by the cheapest Haswell Celeron I could get (with 16 Gigs of ECC RAM though
> >>^^). Sorry if I more or less stole the thread, but this is almost the same
> >>topic. I could use a nudge in either direction. My workplace’s storage
> >>comprises many 2× mirrors, but I am not a company and I am capped at four
> >>bays.
> >>
> >>So, Do you have any input for me before I fetch the dice?
> >>
> >
> >IMO the cost savings for parity RAID trumps everything unless money
> >just isn't a factor.
> >
> >Now, with ZFS it is frustrating because arrays are relatively
> >inflexible when it comes to expansion, though that applies to all
> >types of arrays. That is one major advantage of btrfs (and mdadm) over
> >zfs.  I hear they're working on that, but in general there are a lot
> >of things in zfs that are more static compared to btrfs.
> >
> >-- 
> >Rich
> >
> 
> When planning for ZFS pools, at least for home use, it's worth thinking
> about your usage pattern, and if you'll need to expand the pool before
> the lifetime of the drives rolls around.

When I set the NAS up, I migrated everything from my existing individual
external harddrives onto it (the biggest of which was 3 TB). So the main
data slurping is over. Going from 6 to 12 TB should be enough™ for a loooong
time unless I start buying TV series on DVD for which I don't have physical
space.

> I incorporated ZFS' expansion inflexibility into my planned
> maintenance/servicing budget.

What was the conclusion? That having no more free slots meant that you can
just as well use the inflexible Raidz, otherwise would have gone with Mirror?

> I expect I'll do the same thing late next year, I wonder if 4TB will be
> the sweet spot, or if I might be able to get something larger.

Me thinks 4 TB was already the sweet spot when I bought my drives a year
back (regarding ¤/GiB). Just checked: 6 TB is the cheapest now according to
a pricing search engine. Well, the German version anyway[1]. The brits are a
bit more picky[2].

[1] https://geizhals.de/?cat=hde7s&xf=10287_NAS~957_Western+Digital&sort=r
[2] https://skinflint.co.uk/?cat=hde7s&xf=10287_NAS%7E957_Western+Digital&sort=r

-- 
This message was written using only recycled electrons.