1 |
On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 07:54:41AM +0000, Richard Bradfield wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 06:35:10PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: |
3 |
> >On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Frank Steinmetzger <Warp_7@×××.de> wrote: |
4 |
> >> |
5 |
> >>I don’t really care about performance. It’s a simple media archive powered |
6 |
> >>by the cheapest Haswell Celeron I could get (with 16 Gigs of ECC RAM though |
7 |
> >>^^). Sorry if I more or less stole the thread, but this is almost the same |
8 |
> >>topic. I could use a nudge in either direction. My workplace’s storage |
9 |
> >>comprises many 2× mirrors, but I am not a company and I am capped at four |
10 |
> >>bays. |
11 |
> >> |
12 |
> >>So, Do you have any input for me before I fetch the dice? |
13 |
> >> |
14 |
> > |
15 |
> >IMO the cost savings for parity RAID trumps everything unless money |
16 |
> >just isn't a factor. |
17 |
> > |
18 |
> >Now, with ZFS it is frustrating because arrays are relatively |
19 |
> >inflexible when it comes to expansion, though that applies to all |
20 |
> >types of arrays. That is one major advantage of btrfs (and mdadm) over |
21 |
> >zfs. I hear they're working on that, but in general there are a lot |
22 |
> >of things in zfs that are more static compared to btrfs. |
23 |
> > |
24 |
> >-- |
25 |
> >Rich |
26 |
> > |
27 |
> |
28 |
> When planning for ZFS pools, at least for home use, it's worth thinking |
29 |
> about your usage pattern, and if you'll need to expand the pool before |
30 |
> the lifetime of the drives rolls around. |
31 |
|
32 |
When I set the NAS up, I migrated everything from my existing individual |
33 |
external harddrives onto it (the biggest of which was 3 TB). So the main |
34 |
data slurping is over. Going from 6 to 12 TB should be enough™ for a loooong |
35 |
time unless I start buying TV series on DVD for which I don't have physical |
36 |
space. |
37 |
|
38 |
> I incorporated ZFS' expansion inflexibility into my planned |
39 |
> maintenance/servicing budget. |
40 |
|
41 |
What was the conclusion? That having no more free slots meant that you can |
42 |
just as well use the inflexible Raidz, otherwise would have gone with Mirror? |
43 |
|
44 |
> I expect I'll do the same thing late next year, I wonder if 4TB will be |
45 |
> the sweet spot, or if I might be able to get something larger. |
46 |
|
47 |
Me thinks 4 TB was already the sweet spot when I bought my drives a year |
48 |
back (regarding ¤/GiB). Just checked: 6 TB is the cheapest now according to |
49 |
a pricing search engine. Well, the German version anyway[1]. The brits are a |
50 |
bit more picky[2]. |
51 |
|
52 |
[1] https://geizhals.de/?cat=hde7s&xf=10287_NAS~957_Western+Digital&sort=r |
53 |
[2] https://skinflint.co.uk/?cat=hde7s&xf=10287_NAS%7E957_Western+Digital&sort=r |
54 |
|
55 |
-- |
56 |
This message was written using only recycled electrons. |