Drive Replacement

[Fastline]

Hello,

So, i have my old NAS which has 6x10TB. One of the disk has a CRC error and is causing issues. Unfortunately, i don't have the same model drive anymore. Back then, i did not buy one or two as a spare. However, I do have the same capacity drive and the same lineup. But the issue is it has a different firmware than rest of the drives and is also higher in terms of specs such as cache speed, workload etc. So my question is would it effect my pool in any way?

Will it make any impact on the pool? Will be my data at risk? Will it cause any data integrity issues?

Thanks

 

[Patrick M. Hausen]

None of these. Just replace the defective drive.

 

[Davvo]

So my question is would it effect my pool in any way?

Will it make any impact on the pool? Will be my data at risk? Will it cause any data integrity issues?

No.

CRC errors doesn't always mean you need to replace the drive.

 

[Fastline]

None of these. Just replace the defective drive.

Thank God! Will do that. Thank you again :)

So, basically, the drive should be of the same capacity right? Same lineup would be much better right? For example, EXOS with EXOS (if replacing single or multiple defective drive instead of all of them).

 

[danb35]

the drive should be of the same capacity right?

Same or larger.

Same lineup would be much better right?

Eh, not really. You definitely wouldn't want a drive that's slower than the rest of the drives in the vdev, and it'd be a waste to use one that's faster. It'd be good to use one that's rated for 24x7 workloads. But same manufacturer/series? Not on my radar.

 

[Fastline]

No.

CRC errors doesn't always mean you need to replace the drive.

Okay. Well, i need to cause, the performance is decreasing like crazy. First it was 100% then it is now 90%. Moreover, everytime BIOS reports SMART error asking to replace the drive. Moreover, it causes the whole system and sometimes file transfer freeze. But when the drive is removed, its all normal.

 

[Fastline]

Same or larger.

Eh, not really. You definitely wouldn't want a drive that's slower than the rest of the drives in the vdev, and it'd be a waste to use one that's faster. It'd be good to use one that's rated for 24x7 workloads. But same manufacturer/series? Not on my radar.

Got it. Thanks for clearing it up.

Also, i have got another question.

For example, i have 8 drives and let's say there are 6 onboard SATA ports. So, can i use those 6 onboard SATA ports and then drive two more from the SAS or vice-versa? Will be there any negative impact in terms of reliability? Will it effect drive/pool speed or affect the data integrity in any manner?

 

[danb35]

So, can i use those 6 onboard SATA ports and then drive two more from the SAS or vice-versa?

Yep, no issues.

 

[Fastline]

Yep, no issues.

Yay. I was just so much worried about. xD

 

[Fastline]

Guys, can anyone tell me if LSI 93XX or 94XX supports PCIe 4.0 NVMe (U.2) drives?

 

[Davvo]

Apparently the 94XX can.

Broadcom LSI HBA Tri-Mode 9400-16i 16x SAS/SATA / 4x NVMe (4x SFF-8643), PCIe 3.1 x8 - 05-50008-00

16 internal, Four (x4) SFF-8643, 6.127 in. x 2.712 in (155.65 mm x 68.90 mm), 11.95W

smicro.eu

You will need SFF-8639 connectors though. And, keep in mind the whole HBA is a PCIE 3.0 x8.

 

[Etorix]

U.2 devices are best plugged directly to the computer than through a tri-mode "HBA". Use adapters from PCIe or M.2 slots are required.

 

[Fastline]

Apparently the 94XX can.

Broadcom LSI HBA Tri-Mode 9400-16i 16x SAS/SATA / 4x NVMe (4x SFF-8643), PCIe 3.1 x8 - 05-50008-00

16 internal, Four (x4) SFF-8643, 6.127 in. x 2.712 in (155.65 mm x 68.90 mm), 11.95W

smicro.eu

You will need SFF-8639 connectors though. And, keep in mind the whole HBA is a PCIE 3.0 x8.

I thought the same first but when the Card is itself 3.0, how can it do PCIe 4.0 U.2?

 

[Fastline]

U.2 devices are best plugged directly to the computer than through a tri-mode "HBA". Use adapters from PCIe or M.2 slots are required.

Is there any risk when using an HBA for the same?

 

[Etorix]

No risk, just a loss of performance because what should be a direct NVMe transaction goes through the SCSI stack instead.
And a PCIe 3.0 card obviously serves PCIe 4.0 devices as 3.0.

 

[Fastline]

No risk, just a loss of performance because what should be a direct NVMe transaction goes through the SCSI stack instead.

Hmm. How much is the performance loss though?

And a PCIe 3.0 card obviously serves PCIe 4.0 devices as 3.0.

Ah, i see. Of course, its backwards compatible but i was looking for an actual PCIe 4.0. I guess 9500-16i is PCIe 4.0 and supports native U.2 SSDs?

 

[danb35]

Of course, its backwards compatible but i was looking for an actual PCIe 4.0

Are you really going to see a loss in performance on these devices if they "only" have four lanes of PCIe 3.0 available?

 

[Fastline]

Are you really going to see a loss in performance on these devices if they "only" have four lanes of PCIe 3.0 available?

Sorry, but can you please explain what you're trying to say? I'm still learning

 

[Etorix]

Hmm. How much is the performance loss though?

Here are some figure and tables to ponder (direct NVMe vs. 9600-series RAID controller in Dell servers):

Dell PowerEdge Direct Drives vs PERC 12 Review

We're digging into the storage options and the performance profile of what Dell calls Direct Drives vs PERC 12 hardware RAID card.

www.storagereview.com

With respect to the conclusion, mind that ZFS would be "software-defined storage", so a case where one wants direct drives.

Sorry, but can you please explain what you're trying to say? I'm still learning

You shouldn't confuse the theoretical maximal performance (interface speed) with what you can actually achieve, and much less what you can actually use.
It would help to know your use case, your performance requirements, and your hardware (server and drives).

 

[Fastline]

Here are some figure and tables to ponder (direct NVMe vs. 9600-series RAID controller in Dell servers):

Dell PowerEdge Direct Drives vs PERC 12 Review

We're digging into the storage options and the performance profile of what Dell calls Direct Drives vs PERC 12 hardware RAID card.

www.storagereview.com

With respect to the conclusion, mind that ZFS would be "software-defined storage", so a case where one wants direct drives.


You shouldn't confuse the theoretical maximal performance (interface speed) with what you can actually achieve, and much less what you can actually use.
It would help to know your use case, your performance requirements, and your hardware (server and drives).

Got it. Still systems are under several tests so the production hardware is not confirmed yet. I've been currently testing with the spare hardware i have.

I have a tower and it will be soon a production NAS. I'm looking to add a couple of drives. Should i go for SATA or SAS? Are there any caveats between the two?

Thanks