BUILD 10TB Helium disks and configuration

[nobody]

Hello everyone,

I'd really appreciate your response on my question since I am new to Freenas.

So I will buy a server with 4 x 10TB Helium disks and will use RAIDZ1 so there is at least one disk for parity.
Will Freenas work with 10TB disks ?

My second question is if it will be able to handle 30TB of flat files and share them via CIFS share.

Will this be appropriate for connecting the disks ?
9207-8i 6G SAS/SATA HBA Card

My server will be using E3-1230 and 32GB ECC Ram for processing.

If you feel I am missing something on the larger image with the above let me know so I don't throw money out of the window :)

Thanks for the help.

 

[Bidule0hm]

So I will buy a server with 4 x 10TB Helium disks and will use RAIDZ1 so there is at least one disk for parity.
Will Freenas work with 10TB disks ?

Yes. But but RAID-Z1 is highly discouraged for drives bigger than 1 TB. Use at least RAID-Z2. Personally I'd use RAID-Z3 ;)

 

[nobody]

Hello and thanks for your response.

Why would you say not to do raidz for disks larger than 1tb? Due to rebuild times or other reasons that I haven't looked into ?
Isn't RAIDZ like RAID 5 ? 3 disks data and one parity in my case ?
I would prefer RAIDZ2 as well but there are also budget constraints...

Disks I will use are enterprise class so they offer a better durability than other seagate disks.
Also this storage will be mostly used to read data instead of writing. I don't expect great stress to be put in this storage. After all there won't be any iscsi etc. 10/90 read/write ratio of flat files.

 

[danb35]

Keep in mind also the 80% rule and TB/TiB conversion. On the former, you shouldn't fill your pool to more than 80% capacity. On the latter, your 30 TB are 27 TiB, and 80% of that is just over 22 TiB. Even without that conversion, you shouldn't use more than 24 TB of the pool you're describing. ZFS, for all practical purposes, has no limits of either volume or file size, or of number of files or directories, but actual hardware does have limitations. If you actually have 30 TiB of data you need to store, you should probably add another pair of drives and set up as RAIDZ2.

 

[Mirfster]

Why would you say not to do raidz for disks larger than 1tb? Due to rebuild times or other reasons that I haven't looked into ?
Isn't RAIDZ like RAID 5 ? 3 disks data and one parity in my case ?
I would prefer RAIDZ2 as well but there are also budget constraints...

See @Bidule0hm 's link for "RAID-Z1/RAID5 isn't recommended" in his sig...

 

[nobody]

Hello guys and thanks for the immediate replies,

@danb35
Yeah correct. When said 30TB I meant the "marketing value" of the disk. 24-25TB Should be ok for my data.


@Mirfster
I can't argue with that. I know the dangers of raid 5, probability or bit rust and other factors that don't allow raid rebuild etc.
However isn't this the core difference of ZFS ? I am aware that is double checking data and then it even checks metadata in order to avoid such an issue to occur.
This is what actually oracle guys claim on this link :
https://blogs.oracle.com/bonwick/entry/zfs_end_to_end_data

Am I missing something on that ?

 

[snaptec]

The problem is the mtbf.
Some guys wrote romans about that.
In short:
When you resilver a faulty drive the chance that there is Another failure in any of the 3 other drives is more than 100%... Thats why raid5 /raidz1 is dead.


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

 

[rungekutta]

When you resilver a faulty drive the chance that there is Another failure in any of the 3 other drives is more than 100%...

Unlikely. But that's being pedantic. ;) Point still valid.

 

[nobody]

I see. Valid point there.

I will put more disks and make it raidz2.
This SATA card will be ok right ? 9207-8i 6G SAS/SATA HBA Card

 

[Nick2253]

To add to the RAIDZ1 discussion: because of the relatively likelihood of URE (unrecoverable error) events, RAIDZ1 should be considered the minimum for reliable datakeeping. In other words, RAIDZ1 is sufficient to preserve your data on working hardware. If you desire redundancy from drive failure above and beyond your data protection, then RAIDZ1 should be considered insufficient for that purpose.

And, as always, RAID is not backup. Make sure you have a backup in place if you need it.