• mosiacmango@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    20 hours ago

    I’m here for it. The 8 disc server is normally a great form factor for size, data density and redundancy with raid6/raidz2.

    This would net around 180TB in that form factor. Thats would go a long way for a long while.

    • Badabinski@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      20 hours ago

      I dunno if you would want to run raidz2 with disks this large. The resilver times would be absolutely bazonkers, I think. I have 24 TB drives in my server and run mirrored vdevs because the chances of one of those drives failing during a raidz2 resilver is just too high. I can’t imagine what it’d be like with 30 TB disks.

      • killabeezio@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Yeah I agree. I just got 20tb in mine. Decided to just z2, which in my case should be fine. But was contemplating the same thing. Going to have to start doing z2 with 3 drives in each vdev lol.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 hours ago

        Is RAID2 ever the right choice? Honestly, I don’t touch anything outside of 0, 1, 5, 6, and 10.

        Edit: missed the z, my bad. I don’t use ZFS and just skipped over it.

      • taladar@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        19 hours ago

        A few years ago I had a 12 disk RAID6 array and the power distributor (the bit between the redundant PSUs and the rest of the system) went and took 5 drives with them, lost everything on there. Backup is absolutely essential but if you can’t do that for some reason at least use RAID1 where you only lose part of your data if you lose more than 2 drives.