SOLVED Help: Lost pool after upgrading to FreeNAS 11

[zipphreak]

Calm your jets. I was using a tablet for the forum while troubleshooting on my wife's pc. My normal laptop got returned to work today as I'm switching jobs.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

 

[joeschmuck]

I also had to replace the l2arc cache sad.

Do you actually find that it helps to have the L2ARC?

Also, glad to hear your pool is intact.

 

[zipphreak]

I noticed improvement when using wired 100mb or 1gb and repeating file transfers. At one point I was maxing out my 1gb port doing a cifs transfer.

I followed the hardware guide and recommendations for l2arc. I do have 16gb ecc ram, I think more ram is better. But having some l2arc on flash is advantageous. I didn't use an expensive battery backed up sad, It was just a Samsung 850 pro 256gb. Probably way larger than what is needed.

How about zil logs is it better to have a separate drive for this?



Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

 

[joeschmuck]

At one point I was maxing out my 1gb port doing a cifs transfer.

I can do this all day long on my system, no L2ARC.

I didn't use an expensive battery backed up sad, It was just a Samsung 850 pro 256gb. Probably way larger than what is needed.

Don't need battery backup for an L2ARC.

How about zil logs is it better to have a separate drive for this?

If you run one of these then is should be battery backed and it should be a seperate unit.

I'm not recommending that you use either device, I suspect you would be fine without them but if you actually do haev a lot of repeating access to data then the L2ARC could be helping you.

 

[zipphreak]

I'm running 6 1tb drives in three separate mirrors. Mainly set up like this because they were added in stages. Is RAIDZ1 or Z2 more optimal for performance and redundancy? I'm going to copy all the data and rebuild the pool to be a little bit more robust, then I'll go back to FreeNAS 11.0.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

 

[joeschmuck]

Is raidz1 or z2 more optimal for performance and redundancy?

Well RAIDZ1 is slightly better for performance while RAIDZ2 is much better for redundancy. I will alway recommend RAIDZ2 unless the data is not important then RAIDZ1 is fine.

 

[zipphreak]

Yah that's what figured. I should have plenty of space regardless, but integrity and availability is my goal.

Raidz2 is only 66% of total disk capacity? So 6 1tb drives, I would have two parity disks and four data disks.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

 

[zipphreak]

Not too bad copying large video files. Not bad for a cheap tp-link switch.

 

[joeschmuck]

Raidz2 is only 66% of total disk capacity? So 6 1tb drives, I would have two parity disks and four data disks.

Use a RAID Calculator (I have two links in my signature), subtract 2GB each drive for the swap partitions, then reduce it by 20% and that is the final working space. The 20% is to maintain a fast ZFS file system, it doesn't matter what configuration you choose for the 20%. If you use iSCSI then you should subtract 50% to ensure a fast iSCSI throughput.

A RAIDZ2 with six hard drives is still fast enough to saturate a 10Gb connection, unless you are runnign laptop hard drives then maybe not a 10Gb connection. Your network is slowing the transfer rate, you should be seeing 90+ values. Of course that is for SMB transfers, NFS may be different.