4 ms·
Sorry, but, no. If you've gone to the effort of getting a massive raid like that for home use, you need a backup. If you don't have a backup, stop reading, yo
by KaiserPro 11y ago
Sorry, but, no.
If you've gone to the effort of getting a massive raid like that for home use, you need a backup.
If you don't have a backup, stop reading, you're an arse.
Run a full backup, check restoration.
Blast away your NAS (its ZFS, relies on free space. The fuller it gets the slower it gets (unless you have SSDs or lots of write cache)) It's probably due and upgrade, (OS/XFS)
re-arrange your array, you're changing the way you use it, so you need to do it.
Restore data back over the top (with compression...)
as for "it costs money" well thats why you chose zfs, for redundancy....
- ownagefool 11y agoIt depends what you're doing really. I run a 5 disk ZFS cluster to host media files. I'd rather not deal with failure very often, but when it does happen and I lose a whole bunch of media, I can download it again. The second I elect to host anything even remotly important on it, it'll be backed up, but until then there's no need for me to pay to host that elsewhere. Professionals who think they don't need backup's because they have redundancy do need a slap though.
- leni536 11y agoFor that use case ZFS seems overkill.
- ownagefool 11y agoPossibly, but what's the problem? It's pretty much a "just works" file system where you can lose 1-2 disks where blocks are continuously checksummed and scrubbed to ensure consistency. What exactly would you rather be using?
- coldtea 11y ago>If you've gone to the effort of getting a massive raid like that for home use, you need a backup. If you don't have a backup, stop reading, you're an arse. Or maybe I need to have large NAS in volume BUT for transient data sets which I could not care less to lose (and thus backup), which makes you an ass for ass-summing.
- KaiserPro 11y agoYou'd be using raid0 or similar with XFS...