Not a problem...just a question

[mshorey01]

System was previously on core but I switched to scale some time last year. I was curious about the difference in amount of partitions per disk. These 12 disks are all part of a 3 vdev raidz1 pool. Thanks!

 

[winnielinnie]

It's correct.

Each disk, when added to a new vdev, is partitioned into two devices.

The first (2G) is used for Linux "mdadm", as a member device of a raid1 "mirror". This mirror is then encrypted with dm-crypt and used as a swap device. (Nothing to do with ZFS.)

The second partition (remainder) is used as a vdev member, for mirror, RAIDZ1, RAIDZ2, or RAIDZ3. (This is ZFS.)

 

[mshorey01]

It's correct.

Each disk, when added to a new vdev, is partitioned into two devices.

The first (2G) is used for Linux "mdadm", as a member device of a raid1 "mirror". This mirror is then encrypted with dm-crypt and used as a swap device. (Nothing to do with ZFS.)

The second partition (remainder) is used as a vdev member, for mirror, RAIDZ1, RAIDZ2, or RAIDZ3. (This is ZFS.)

Gotcha. I guess I was wondering why some showed a crypt swap and 2 didn't (sdh and sdj). Thanks for the response btw.

 

[winnielinnie]

I guess I was wondering why some showed a crypt swap and 2 didn't (sdh and sdj).

Didn't catch that. Not sure why.

Did you disable swap creation at any point in time in your TrueNAS settings?

I know there was a bug not too long ago with SCALE in which partitions were created in the incorrect order/size, which had to do with TrueNAS's automatic swap space creation. This could be a spillover bug from that.

 

[mshorey01]

Didn't catch that. Not sure why.

Did you disable swap creation at any point in time in your TrueNAS settings?

I know there was a bug not too long ago with SCALE in which partitions were created in the incorrect order/size, which had to do with TrueNAS's automatic swap space creation. This could be a spillover bug from that.

I try not to change anything in TrueNAS so I don't think it would have been from something I did. Any possible negative effect for it being in this state? Thanks again.

 

[winnielinnie]

Any possible negative effect for it being in this state?

Not really, no. Just maybe 2G lost as "useable" swap, which you probably don't need. You have plenty of swap, as it is, and the installer even gives you an option to use a 16GB swap partition on the boot drive(s).

What does swapon -v reveal?

 

[mshorey01]

Not really, no. Just maybe 2G lost as "useable" swap, which you probably don't need. You have plenty of swap, as it is, and the installer even gives you an option to use a 16GB swap partition on the boot drive(s).

What does swapon -v reveal?

 

[winnielinnie]

So my uneducated guess is there's probably a built-in limit to how much swap / how many swap devices will be activated on SCALE. Maybe that number is 5?

Someone like @Kris Moore might know.