Freenas not showing all of my disk space

[thetallest]

I know I am most likely going to get flamed for this, but here I go.

I have 3 disks in my freeNAS two 40 gb and a 160 gb to the best of knowledge, unless math took a turn in the middle of the night, adds up to 240 gb but I am only being shown 110 gb? I have searched with every term I could think to lead me down the correct path to correct this issue. So the question(s) are:

1. Why is this happening ?
2. What do I need to do to show all of my disk space ? ( If there is a link showing step by step great if not could you please list step by step ?)
3. Please be nice in your response.
4. Thank you for any and all help.!!!!

Thank you
thetallest

 

[thetallest]

wow I know you all do not wish to chime in on such a simple subject but come on people give up the help ........

 

[praecorloth]

That is an odd one. First, let's get a little more info about your storage set up. Are these drives RAIDed, or just being used as individual drives? If you're using ZFS, did you create any ZFS datasets that may be limited to 110GB?

 

[thetallest]

That is an odd one. First, let's get a little more info about your storage set up. Are these drives RAIDed, or just being used as individual drives? If you're using ZFS, did you create any ZFS datasets that may be limited to 110GB?

Oh Yeah I guess I should have posted a little bit more info about my system.
Yes the drives are raided together. I mounted them UFS not ZFS. Here is a snap shot of my system
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/6995352/NAS1.png

I hope that tells all. If there is more you need about my system please ask.

 

[paleoN]

wow I know you all do not wish to chime in on such a simple subject but come on people give up the help ........

You whine and complain about not getting flamed and then bitch that no one responded in 11.5 hours. How about just asking your questions and being patient.

I hope that tells all. If there is more you need about my system please ask.

Hardly, the FreeNAS version & the volume status would help.


But let me take a stab anyway.

Yes the drives are raided together. I mounted them UFS not ZFS

Let's see: 3 drives in UFS raid3, 40GB smallest drive - 40 x 3 = 120GB and UFS formatted, which UFS reserves some metadata. 110GB sounds just about right.

How did I do?

 

[lrusak]

Let's see: 3 drives in UFS raid3, 40GB smallest drive - 40 x 3 = 120GB and UFS formatted, which UFS reserves some metadata. 110GB sounds just about right.

How did I do?

Bingo!

You'd be better off not using RAID (if you want all your disk space to be usable)

 

[thetallest]

You whine and complain about not getting flamed and then bitch that no one responded in 11.5 hours. How about just asking your questions and being patient.

Hardly, the FreeNAS version & the volume status would help.


But let me take a stab anyway.

Let's see: 3 drives in UFS raid3, 40GB smallest drive - 40 x 3 = 120GB and UFS formatted, which UFS reserves some metadata. 110GB sounds just about right.


How did I do?

Nope you missed it in my first post 2 drive 40 gb = 80 and 1 160 = 160 + 80 = 240 gb

 

[Hexland]

And you missed the point he was making.

You have set up Raid 3 -- which means that the volume is made up of 3 sets of the smallest device in the RAID set... (i.e. 3 x 40Gb). The 160Gb drive is effectively treated as a 40Gb.

 

[thetallest]

You whine and complain about not getting flamed and then bitch that no one responded in 11.5 hours. How about just asking your questions and being patient.

Hardly, the FreeNAS version & the volume status would help.


But let me take a stab anyway.

Let's see: 3 drives in UFS raid3, 40GB smallest drive - 40 x 3 = 120GB and UFS formatted, which UFS reserves some metadata. 110GB sounds just about right.

How did I do?

Okay lets me first apologize for sounding like I was whining. I figured with all the help out there that someone would jump all over an easy one. My Fault. I did post a volume status in my post it shows you all the volumes involved there are 2 40 gb drives and 1 160 gb drive. The FreeNAS version is FreeNAS-8.0.4-RELEASE-p2-x64 (11367). The link you posted to me I do not have on my version I guess or they changed it.

 

[thetallest]

And you missed the point he was making.

You have set up Raid 3 -- which means that the volume is made up of 3 sets of the smallest device in the RAID set... (i.e. 3 x 40Gb). The 160Gb drive is effectively treated as a 40Gb.

Ahh I did not know it was doing that I will redo my disk sets then I have another 160 I am going to put in the box so I am just going to do two sets one 80 gb and the other 320 ( 2 x 160 minus reserve )

 

[praecorloth]

Ahh I did not know it was doing that I will redo my disk sets then I have another 160 I am going to put in the box so I am just going to do two sets one 80 gb and the other 320 ( 2 x 160 minus reserve )

Eeee...Given the misunderstandings in this thread, I'm just going to post point blank here so that I know that you are aware of what you're doing. Because I hate to see bad things happen because of misunderstandings.

You're talking about striping your data across two disks here. This doubles your space but increases the chances of epic failure by 100%. By epic failure I mean "Lose all your data" kinda failure. By 100% I mean that a failure in one drive means that the other drive has half of your data in a way that makes it completely unusable. In short, you should never RAID 0 (stripe) any data that you care about unless you're aware of the risks and have something in place for ->WHEN<- a failure occurs.

Mirroring is another route you can take with each of your same-sized drives. The downside is that you lose half of your total space. So your two 40GB drives combined will give you a 40GB share. The upshot is that if one drive dies, the other one is still holding your stuff and you can put a new drive in place before your second drive dies. Redundancy sucks in that you lose space, but it's awesome in that it's redundant.

 

[thetallest]

Eeee...Given the misunderstandings in this thread, I'm just going to post point blank here so that I know that you are aware of what you're doing. Because I hate to see bad things happen because of misunderstandings.

You're talking about striping your data across two disks here. This doubles your space but increases the chances of epic failure by 100%. By epic failure I mean "Lose all your data" kinda failure. By 100% I mean that a failure in one drive means that the other drive has half of your data in a way that makes it completely unusable. In short, you should never RAID 0 (stripe) any data that you care about unless you're aware of the risks and have something in place for ->WHEN<- a failure occurs.

Mirroring is another route you can take with each of your same-sized drives. The downside is that you lose half of your total space. So your two 40GB drives combined will give you a 40GB share. The upshot is that if one drive dies, the other one is still holding your stuff and you can put a new drive in place before your second drive dies. Redundancy sucks in that you lose space, but it's awesome in that it's redundant.

Yep I understand the Risk involved. This is MISC data like Movies /Tv Shows and such that if I Lost them I would not cry one bit. My most valuable data is backed up offsite. Thank you for addressing this for future folks who might look at this post. Okay I have another one for you I now have two 40's and two 160's on the same but different IDE channels. I know the system put some space in reserve but 10 on the 80 gb stripe and 20 on the 320 stripe seems a bit much how do I reduce that reserve space or can I and should I ? I am also wondering UFS or ZFS ? what are the advantages of one over the other ?"

 

[praecorloth]

I can't speak to the reserve space issue. However UFS vs ZFS. UFS is a pretty generic file system like you're used to seeing with NTFS or EXT. ZFS is special in that it has a lot of data protection features (like scrubbing, and snapshots). Because of those features, it has beefier hardware requirements. Though for the sizes you're talking about, I don't think you'll run in to much trouble. I'm running ~1TB ZFS pool off of a Pentium 4 with 1.5GB of memory. Required some tweaking to get it working properly, though.

My guess is ZFS isn't going to be a good fit for you, given what you've said about your data, and the space on your drives shrinking immediately after formatting (ZFS snapshots take up some amount of space, so that would just mean more lost space). However if you still feel like experimenting with it, you'll want a 64bit capable processor, and a about 1GB of memory or more.

 

[thetallest]

This thread can now be closed !!! Thank you all for the insights.