Dear FreeNAS veterans,
I am running FreeNAS for a couple of years now, since 9.3 I guess. However, recently I rebuilt my box and I am considering to replace my hard drives. They are all running properly and did not suffer of any errors or such. It's four 3 TB SATA drives with a RAIDZ2 pool in a server with eight bays. All four drives have a total uptime of 4+ years now. Thus, I want to replace all four with larger ones. The pool is encrypted.
I read on the internet that it would be possible to in-place replace multiple disks at a time. So, would it be a good idea to plug in four larger new drives in the remaining bays and in-place replace them all at once keeping the current ones online? Or should I instead resilver one by one? Or might I even regularly replace the drives one by one by taking each offline?
At the time of writing I don't really consider option three because I don't think it's a good idea to lose redundancy when there is no good reason like a failing disk, but I also read that some people argued for this approach because it would be faster. I already search the forum, but I did not yet find a similar post, so any opinions are appreciated.
TL;DR
1 Encrypted Pool on
4 Disks to be In-Place Replaced with
4 New Larger Disks and
4 Empty Bays.
Best,
Manuel
I am running FreeNAS for a couple of years now, since 9.3 I guess. However, recently I rebuilt my box and I am considering to replace my hard drives. They are all running properly and did not suffer of any errors or such. It's four 3 TB SATA drives with a RAIDZ2 pool in a server with eight bays. All four drives have a total uptime of 4+ years now. Thus, I want to replace all four with larger ones. The pool is encrypted.
I read on the internet that it would be possible to in-place replace multiple disks at a time. So, would it be a good idea to plug in four larger new drives in the remaining bays and in-place replace them all at once keeping the current ones online? Or should I instead resilver one by one? Or might I even regularly replace the drives one by one by taking each offline?
At the time of writing I don't really consider option three because I don't think it's a good idea to lose redundancy when there is no good reason like a failing disk, but I also read that some people argued for this approach because it would be faster. I already search the forum, but I did not yet find a similar post, so any opinions are appreciated.
TL;DR
1 Encrypted Pool on
4 Disks to be In-Place Replaced with
4 New Larger Disks and
4 Empty Bays.
Best,
Manuel