Is this a two raidz2 in mirror?

[melloa]

Let the wizard pick the best configuration for a eight drives server and got:

Code:

root@freenas:~ # zpool status
  pool: freenas-boot
 state: ONLINE
  scan: none requested
config:

		NAME		STATE	 READ WRITE CKSUM
		freenas-boot  ONLINE	   0	 0	 0
		  da0p2	 ONLINE	   0	 0	 0

errors: No known data errors

  pool: raid
 state: ONLINE
  scan: none requested
config:

		NAME											STATE	 READ WRITE CKSUM
		raid											ONLINE	   0	 0	 0
		  raidz2-0									  ONLINE	   0	 0	 0
			gptid/a139cc16-426e-11e8-ab85-000c29131f42  ONLINE	   0	 0	 0
			gptid/a25ce156-426e-11e8-ab85-000c29131f42  ONLINE	   0	 0	 0
			gptid/a360718e-426e-11e8-ab85-000c29131f42  ONLINE	   0	 0	 0
			gptid/a45e6c92-426e-11e8-ab85-000c29131f42  ONLINE	   0	 0	 0
		  raidz2-1									  ONLINE	   0	 0	 0
			gptid/a58369c2-426e-11e8-ab85-000c29131f42  ONLINE	   0	 0	 0
			gptid/a6721c97-426e-11e8-ab85-000c29131f42  ONLINE	   0	 0	 0
			gptid/a775591e-426e-11e8-ab85-000c29131f42  ONLINE	   0	 0	 0
			gptid/a891cc31-426e-11e8-ab85-000c29131f42  ONLINE	   0	 0	 0

errors: No known data errors
root@freenas:~ # zfs list
NAME													USED  AVAIL  REFER  MOUNTPOINT
freenas-boot											846M  29.9G	64K  none
freenas-boot/ROOT									   838M  29.9G	29K  none
freenas-boot/ROOT/Initial-Install						 1K  29.9G   836M  legacy
freenas-boot/ROOT/Wizard-2018-04-17_11:39:55			  1K  29.9G   836M  legacy
freenas-boot/ROOT/default							   838M  29.9G   836M  legacy
freenas-boot/grub									  6.84M  29.9G  6.84M  legacy
raid												   1.84M  3.40T   128K  /mnt/raid
raid/.system											988K  3.40T   140K  legacy
raid/.system/configs-b3147af497d748f98f845f65b942be53   128K  3.40T   128K  legacy
raid/.system/cores									  128K  3.40T   128K  legacy
raid/.system/rrd-b3147af497d748f98f845f65b942be53	   128K  3.40T   128K  legacy
raid/.system/samba4									 337K  3.40T   337K  legacy
raid/.system/syslog-b3147af497d748f98f845f65b942be53	128K  3.40T   128K  legacy
raid/cifs											   128K  3.40T   128K  /mnt/raid/cifs

Even with raidz3 I'll get more space:

Code:

root@freenas:~ # zpool status
  pool: freenas-boot
 state: ONLINE
  scan: none requested
config:

		NAME		STATE	 READ WRITE CKSUM
		freenas-boot  ONLINE	   0	 0	 0
		  da0p2	 ONLINE	   0	 0	 0

errors: No known data errors

  pool: raid
 state: ONLINE
  scan: none requested
config:

		NAME											STATE	 READ WRITE CKSUM
		raid											ONLINE	   0	 0	 0
		  raidz3-0									  ONLINE	   0	 0	 0

.
. -- eight hdds ---
.

root@freenas:~ # zfs list
NAME													USED  AVAIL  REFER  MOUNTPOINT
freenas-boot											846M  29.9G	64K  none
freenas-boot/ROOT									   838M  29.9G	29K  none
freenas-boot/ROOT/Initial-Install						 1K  29.9G   836M  legacy
freenas-boot/ROOT/Wizard-2018-04-17_11:39:55			  1K  29.9G   836M  legacy
freenas-boot/ROOT/default							   838M  29.9G   836M  legacy
freenas-boot/grub									  6.84M  29.9G  6.84M  legacy
raid												   2.65M  4.01T   201K  /mnt/raid

Any best practice that would justify the 1st configuration?

Thanks,
Al

 

[Jailer]

What's your goal and usage for your storage?

 

[melloa]

Goal would be the max available space with good redundancy. I always used raidz2, but as the wizard choose the above, the question is: Is it so must more secure that would justify less available space?

 

[Jailer]

With 8 disks I'd go with all 8 in a RAIDZ2 pool if you want to maximize storage.

 

[Chris Moore]

The wizard made a mistake. It happens sometimes. You can destroy the pool and create it again if you don't have data on it yet.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

 

[melloa]

With 8 disks I'd go with all 8 in a RAIDZ2 pool if you want to maximize storage.

That's what I use on all mine NAS'es.

The wizard made a mistake. It happens sometimes. You can destroy the pool and create it again if you don't have data on it yet.

I thought so, but wanted to check for Lessons Learned/Best Practices.

This is a new server I got for my son to play with ESXi (FreeNAS VM), so didn't want him to start with his left foot ...

Thanks Guys!

 

[gpsguy]

No. It's 2 x 4 disk RAIDz2 vdevs striped together.

Is this a two raidz2 in mirror?

 

[danb35]

striped together

...which is always what happens when there are multiple vdevs in a pool.

 

[melloa]

...which is always what happens when there are multiple vdevs in a pool.

Appreciated everyone's inputs. Besides personal preference (mine been raidz2 as it gives me the space and redundancy I want), is there a reason for the wizard configure the new install with that topology or was just a mistake as stated above?

 

[Chris Moore]

Appreciated everyone's inputs. Besides personal preference (mine been raidz2 as it gives me the space and redundancy I want), is there a reason for the wizard configure the new install with that topology or was just a mistake as stated above?

It's overkill on the redundancy but it would add IO performance.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk