TomatoSoup
Dabbler
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2016
- Messages
- 17
I recently put together a NAS with 8x 4tb drives in RAIDZ2
However, I'm seeing weird storage behavior. I'd expect to see 24tb available, but instead I see 29TiB (which I understand is due to the differences between powers of two and powers of ten). That makes sense to me.
What I don't understand is how the underlying volume is listing 20TiB. You know, my aggregate of disks is called platter. and so it lists Platter, then nested beneath that another Platter, and then beneath that my datasets.
To be completely explicit, here's what I'm looking at. https://imgur.com/8AXBMYB
What's up with this? And, before I fill it up more, is there a different structure I could use? If striping together two 4x 4tb RAIDZ2's would get the same storage but more IOPS, then I'd like to take steps to move my data before I get too much. After all, there's the old wisdom about totaldrives-paritydrives equalling a power of two. And I've also heard that that's no longer applicable thanks to compression. And on yet another hand, 1.4TiB/6% does give 24TiB, which is much closer to what I'd expect.
So, what should I do?
However, I'm seeing weird storage behavior. I'd expect to see 24tb available, but instead I see 29TiB (which I understand is due to the differences between powers of two and powers of ten). That makes sense to me.
What I don't understand is how the underlying volume is listing 20TiB. You know, my aggregate of disks is called platter. and so it lists Platter, then nested beneath that another Platter, and then beneath that my datasets.
To be completely explicit, here's what I'm looking at. https://imgur.com/8AXBMYB
What's up with this? And, before I fill it up more, is there a different structure I could use? If striping together two 4x 4tb RAIDZ2's would get the same storage but more IOPS, then I'd like to take steps to move my data before I get too much. After all, there's the old wisdom about totaldrives-paritydrives equalling a power of two. And I've also heard that that's no longer applicable thanks to compression. And on yet another hand, 1.4TiB/6% does give 24TiB, which is much closer to what I'd expect.
So, what should I do?
Last edited: