I am new to FreeNAS, again. I used FreeNAS many years ago but stopped using it in favor of a more energy efficient Buffalo Link Station. My network storage needs were and still are simple. The Link Station is full, 500 gigs, along with the add on USB drives, another 500 gigs. The Link Station is showing signs it is about to quit. I have set up my old PC that has a quad core 2.8 gig processor, 8 gigs of RAM for FreeNAS. I have done everything except install my storage drives. I bought 2 1 terabyte drives with the intent of installing them as separate drives. Now looking at the directions for the set up of storage it would seem I can only have a raid configuration. I don't want a stripe configuration to get 2 gigs of storage. The next viable option for me would be a mirror, but this won't get more storage for me. Is returning my hard drives for bigger ones my only option? If I mirror the two 1 gig drives and then add more drives later, do I use the additional drives and extend the current ZFS volume or can I have an additional ZFS Pool? Which would be better? How would the storage appear on the network? As two separate drives?
-
Important Announcement for the TrueNAS Community.
The TrueNAS Community has now been moved. This forum will now become READ-ONLY for historical purposes. Please feel free to join us on the new TrueNAS Community Forums
Is a RAID set up the only option?
- Thread starter RayWC
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2014
- Messages
- 20,194
You could use them as separate pools, if you don't value your data. If you value your data, read the hardware recommendations sticky, as well as Cyberjock's beginners' guide. Again, if you value your data, use something like RAIDZ2.
If you have two separate pools, they can only be addressed as two separate drives.
If you have two separate pools, they can only be addressed as two separate drives.
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 10,994
You can use UFS formatted drives vice ZFS which will generally give you a quicker speed in files transfers at the cost of a better sumcheck solution. You can create individual RAIDZ1 hard drives as well and as explained above, there is no redundancy which appears to be fine with you for your requirements. Those are your only two options for your intent.
I would recommend you install both drives and format one as a ZFS drive and the second as a UFS drive. Share them and play with them, see which one you like better.
If you wanted to do a real RAIDZ1 which has a single drive failure safety net, purchase one more 1TB drive and create a three drive ZFS RAIDZ1. This would give you 1.8 TB of usable space but also allow you to have one drive fail. I'm not pushing anything on you, just want you to be aware is all.
I would recommend you install both drives and format one as a ZFS drive and the second as a UFS drive. Share them and play with them, see which one you like better.
If you wanted to do a real RAIDZ1 which has a single drive failure safety net, purchase one more 1TB drive and create a three drive ZFS RAIDZ1. This would give you 1.8 TB of usable space but also allow you to have one drive fail. I'm not pushing anything on you, just want you to be aware is all.
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 10,994
That is too bad, it's nice to have an option.
Does that mean it will be gone from 9.2.2 ? Also is it just gone from the GUI only or is UFS really not going to be functional?
Yes, it is gone from 9.2.2. I think it's just removed from the GUI at the moment, but they plan to remove all of the UFS code once some other hush-hush stuff happens. I don't want to say too much in public about features that may or may not happen with 9.2.2.
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 10,994
That is too bad because if you don't have UFS or FAT32 or NTFS, what do you got left to transfer files on, certainly not only over Ethernet. Eh, this is a discussion for another day and another thread.
Well, the big data users typically will spend the $100 for a pair of 10Gb LAN cards from ebay(assuming they don't already own 10Gb LAN cards). NTFS still does/will work though, although it's never been fantastic to use.
Let's face the truth though, anytime you move from one file server to another it's never particularly simple to do. It has always taken some planning and what-not to get it all done.
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 10,994
I wasn't thinking about moving data between file servers but more to restore backup files. Eh, no biggie.
What! a pair of 10Gb LAN cards for $100? I've never seen that before. Even if they were that cheap I'd have to replace my network switches as well but I'm sure someday I would have to anyway.
What! a pair of 10Gb LAN cards for $100? I've never seen that before. Even if they were that cheap I'd have to replace my network switches as well but I'm sure someday I would have to anyway.$100 10Gb NIC... I have 2 of these..
http://www.ebay.com/itm/EXPX9501FXS...837?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item51bd8145e5
http://www.ebay.com/itm/EXPX9501FXS...837?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item51bd8145e5
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 10,994
Ah, $100 each, not a pair, but still not bad. Fiber is okay, I can get miles of it (exaggerating some) from work. We throw away fiber left and right and I know this time next year when we are relocating into a new building, there will be fiber tossed away like crazy! I guess the only issue I'd have, which is minor, is having a link only between my main computer and the NAS that is 10Gb. Guess the rest of the network would need to be 1Gb Ethernet. I wish I could bring home some of the play toys I have at work but it's not worth getting fired over, not at all.
Yeah, sorry. I realize I said $100 for a pair and meant $100 each. Me personally, I can do Gb everywhere and I run 10Gb just for my desktop. Works very well and I have no regrets. They do have RJ45 10Gb too. I just linked the fiber because from what I've heard it's just easier to deal with than RJ45.
- Status
