4 ms·
Is there not an element of penny-wise, pound-foolish here where you end up optimizing the cpu/mono side of things but then run 6+ drives vs fewer larger ones?
by Dachande663 3y ago
Is there not an element of penny-wise, pound-foolish here where you end up optimizing the cpu/mono side of things but then run 6+ drives vs fewer larger ones?
- bluGill 3y agoYou should buy drives in multiples of 5 or 6. Of course this is subject to much debate. Drives fail so you need more than one extra for redundency - I suggest 2 so when (not if!) one fails you still have procuction while repacing the bad drive. 3 drives in a raid-1 mirror for the price of one is spendy so most start looking at raid-5 with dual parity. However putting more than 6 drives in those starts to run into performance issues better handled by striping across two raids. (if you do try more than 6 your odds of 3 drives failing become reasonable so start adding more paricy stripes) which is why I say 6 drives at once is the sweet spot, but others come up with other answers that are not unreasonable. of course one input is how much data do you have. for many 1 modern disk is plenty of space, so you go raid 1 and redundancy is only so you don't need to wait for off site backups to restore after failure.
- dannyw 3y agoIt also depends on your use case. If your NAS is write-once-heavy and just used for archiving data, and isn't being used to run a database or something like that; then you can even do a 20 drive zpool3 if you want. That's my setup for nearly 1/3 PB.
- bluGill 3y agoYou should replace thet system with off site backups. Local NAS is useful for fast local access which isn't what you get.