Glorious wrote:demolition wrote:Not sure if you are referring to the fact that 4x6TB > 16?
Since I am using RAIDZ1, and after other overhead etc. is factored in, the net storage space of my pool is 16.6TB so pretty much spot on.
No.
Ryu was pretty clearly indicating what Waco just said: you are perpetuating two false canards that are propagated by a certain person on a certain forum.
It's just a frustrating situation.
Basically this whole post 100 times over. That certain person shouldn't be recommending anything to anyone. I have patches in the ZFS tree - I'm pretty sure he's never actually delved into the internals of ZFS or even built it from source himself. Not trying to speak to any authority I have in ZFS matters, but that certain person and I butted heads enough that I quit the forum when his response to everything was "that's unsupported, you can't do that, what kind of moron are you, etc" along with his active attacks on anyone who disagreed with his recommendations or even asked what his reasoning was behind them.
Arvald wrote:Exception is the deduplication. 2GB RAM per 1 TB of storage for the comparasons for deduping.
Default is dedupe off.
There are
extremely few workloads that benefit from deduplication. I don't recommend ANYONE enable it without seriously considering the ramifications and whether they'll even benefit for the added complexity, performance implications, and memory requirements.
I run exactly one filesystem with dedupe enabled, and that's my Minecraft jail (since I backup/archive the server contents hourly). Even for that, I spent a long damn time deciding whether the space savings would be worth the hassle.
Rapster wrote:I've been using a Synology 1815+ filled with WD Reds for about a year now, and it has been flawless. Some folks make a cost argument against such devices, but the amount of time the Synology saves me and the wonderful worry-free sleep I get at night more than make up for any small cost differential. I'll never go back to home-brew storage servers.
My setup is worry free in that I never worry about my data integrity or availability. I touch it only when I update the OS or a drive dies - which requires minimal touching. Pull out dead drive, insert new drive, run repair command (or click, if you like the GUI). It just requires a bit of learning up front that Synology (and things like it) don't.
Victory requires no explanation. Defeat allows none.