Truecommand NAS capacity. Am I missing something?

[dnilgreb]

In TrueCommand, the reported values for USED and CAPACITY are not consistent with what TrueNAS reports.
It seems TrueCommand is not "aware" the raid setup in place.

Example:

On my main system, which I call NAS01, I have 6x 4TB disks setup in a Raid-Z2 pool, which gives me an effective total of (not really) 16TB. Right?
Looking at the pool in Storage \ Pools on that NAS, this is my current status:

So, I have used 7,85TB and I have another 6,18TB available.

Looking on the "Show all systems" page in TrueCommand, it looks like this:

So, as you can see, I have very different numbers here.
In TrueCommand, I have a total of 4 systems added. The same is true for all of them.

To me, this seems weird. There should be (at least) a setting somewhere to enter this info about a system, if TrueCommand can´t detect it automatically.
Am I missing something, or just going at it in the wrong way?

I also search the forum, and the almighty Google itself, but nothing came up. Is it really poosible that no one else thought of this?
I think not....

Oh, and I am running TrueCommand 1.3.2, and all the TrueNAS systems are 12.0-U3

 

[kherr]

I have half of it ..... 6 - 4TB disks have a "Capacity" to have a 21.82 TB pool in the largest configuration of a zfs pool .... see the "zfs raid calculator" (google it)

I don't see where they get the 11 though ....
7.25 is "used" for redundancy

 

[Basil Hendroff]

I don't see where they get the 11 though ....

This figure will be higher than that reported under TrueNAS storage because of snapshots and other overheads. The only thing I see that might be questionable on the TC tile is the use of TB instead of TiB for units.

 

[dnilgreb]

I still think that both Capacity and Used should know about the Raid setup, and report (in this case) a Capaity of 14.x TB, and Used should reflect the amount of data stored.

Wouldn´t that be more user friendly? Used subtracted from Capacity should equal free space.
And why wouldn´t it report the same as the TrueNAS GUI? Isn´t that the point?

 

[sretalla]

Actually I think what's happening there is an aggregation of percentages, which creates an artificially low number.

If you aggregate a boot pool which is 20% full, another small pool which is 30% full and a main pool which is 70% full, you get 40% (average being the aggregation function).

I don't think they are necessarily doing it in GiB first, subtracting used from available, but it would come to a much better approximation of the real situation if they did.

What might be better is a stacked bar of the individual pools rather than one bar representing all pools.