First TrueNAS Scale NAS build

[vayer]

Hi,

I'm currently planning my first TrueNAS Scale build and I would love a few recommendations for it. The usage of the server will be mostly photography storage(I'm a concert photographer), backing up important files, running a few TrueNAS apps like Plex, Nextcloud, Pihole, Timemachine and etc. Also occasionally I would like to spin a few vms to play and thinker with, host some personal projects or a lightweight k3s cluster. But the main goal is the storage of photos.

The current parts I am considering are:
Ryzen 9 5900x
4 x Seagate Exos 10tb drives (3 in raid 5 array, 1 in separate pool for non-important data like movies)
1tb SSD (for apps and vms)
Seasonic 80+ gold psu
64 or 128 gb ram
Noctua cpu cooler

So I need a good recommendation for a motherboard and ram. For the motherboard my only requirements would be to have 4 ram slots, 2+ nvme slots and preferably to not be an expensive rgb gaming board.
The case I have left for last because I am still figuring out where should I put it and if putting it in a wardrobe would temper with the performance of the cooling fans.

Thanks in advance

 

[Krill]

Question from a lay person:

4 x Seagate Exos 10tb drives (3 in raid 5 array, 1 in separate pool for non-important data like movies)

If using RaidZ1, and all the drives are identical, why not just use them all as one vdev and use datasets to separate out the actual storage space?

 

[vayer]

Question from a lay person:



If using RaidZ1, and all the drives are identical, why not just use them all as one vdev and use datasets to separate out the actual storage space?

Well if I use all of the drives in the array the actual storage I will get will be less, right? And as I said the one lonely drive will be for data that I don't find critical to lose.

 

[chuck32]

@m.gelasini Please start a separate thread for your question instead of cross positing in an existing thread, imo that's the tidier option and less confusing to people.

Well if I use all of the drives in the array the actual storage I will get will be less, right? L

No, in raidz1 there is one drive for parity, it doesn't matter from the perspective of available storage.
You either have 3x10 TB, where 10 TB are used for parity and a separate 10 TB drive or you have 40 TB where 10 TB are used for parity. In all cases this leaves you with either 30 TB or 20 TB + 10 TB usable.

What should be considered though is that the wider the array the more likely it may be that another drive fails during resilvering. Raidz1 leaves you with no parity during resilvering.

Whether you want to use raidz1 or RAIDZ2 is up to you. In any case that will not absolve you from having backups, raid itself is not a backup.

Personally I'd rather add another drive and go for RAIDZ2. Unless you say restoring from backup is not much of a hassle and you'd rather save on that additional drive.

Opinions on the "right" layout vary. You see I personally do not advocate the use of raidz1, but it's not a problem per se. One should just know about the possible risks it introduces. Especially since 10 TB drives are not exactly small.

 

[vayer]

@m.gelasini Please start a separate thread for your question instead of cross positing in an existing thread, imo that's the tidier option and less confusing to people.


No, in raidz1 there is one drive for parity, it doesn't matter from the perspective of available storage.
You either have 3x10 TB, where 10 TB are used for parity and a separate 10 TB drive or you have 40 TB where 10 TB are used for parity. In all cases this leaves you with either 30 TB or 20 TB + 10 TB usable.

What should be considered though is that the wider the array the more likely it may be that another drive fails during resilvering. Raidz1 leaves you with no parity during resilvering.

Whether you want to use raidz1 or RAIDZ2 is up to you. In any case that will not absolve you from having backups, raid itself is not a backup.

Personally I'd rather add another drive and go for RAIDZ2. Unless you say restoring from backup is not much of a hassle and you'd rather save on that additional drive.

Opinions on the "right" layout vary. You see I personally do not advocate the use of raidz1, but it's not a problem per se. One should just know about the possible risks it introduces. Especially since 10 TB drives are not exactly small.

So is raidz2 the same as raid 6? I was using this calculator to figure out the differences: https://www.synology.com/en-us/support/RAID_calculator?drives=8 TB|8 TB|8 TB|8 TB|8 TB. Also per your last sentence is it better to go for 5 X 8tb drive to achieve the same capacity?

 

[chuck32]

So is raidz2 the same as raid 6?

RAIDZ2 is the ZFS equivalent, yes.

I don't think it matters much if you 8 TB or 10 TB, I'd still prefer RAIDZ2.

 

[vayer]

RAIDZ2 is the ZFS equivalent, yes.

I don't think it matters much if you 8 TB or 10 TB, I'd still prefer RAIDZ2.

well with 5x8tb in raid6 I get ~22TB and 4X10tb is ~18,5TB, which is not a really small difference

 

[chuck32]

No I meant regarding my comment that especially with large drives I'd prefer RAIDZ2, it does not matter if you use 8Tb or 10Tb drives, I still wouldn't advise raidz1 with 8tb drives.
Or I misunderstood your comment.

Again this is my personal opinion, you are free to research yourself and make the informed decision to go with another layout. It's just what I would do and you can something else of course. This is not a hard rule.

 

[vayer]

No I meant regarding my comment that especially with large drives I'd prefer RAIDZ2, it does not matter if you use 8Tb or 10Tb drives, I still wouldn't advise raidz1 with 8tb drives.
Or I misunderstood your comment.

Again this is my personal opinion, you are free to research yourself and make the informed decision to go with another layout. It's just what I would do and you can something else of course. This is not a hard rule.

oh alright

 

[vayer]

So any recommendations for the motherboard and the RAM modules?