Data Hoarder

11 readers

1 users here now

We are digital librarians. Among us are represented the various reasons to keep data -- legal requirements, competitive requirements, uncertainty of permanence of cloud services, distaste for transmitting your data externally (e.g. government or corporate espionage), cultural and familial archivists, internet collapse preppers, and people who do it themselves so they're sure it's done right. Everyone has their reasons for curating the data they have decided to keep (either forever or For A Damn Long Time (tm) ). Along the way we have sought out like-minded individuals to exchange strategies, war stories, and cautionary tales of failures.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

communick@selfhosted.forum

Is a 20 disk raidz3 really a bad idea, for media archiving use cases? (alien.top)

submitted 1 year ago by goldcakes@alien.top to c/datahoarder@selfhosted.forum

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I am archiving a vast amount of media files that are rarely accessed. I'm writing large sequential files, at peaks of about 100MB/s.

I want to maximise storage space primarily; I have 20x 18TB HDDs.

I've been told that large (e.g. 20 disk) vdevs are bad because resilvers will take a very long time, which creates higher risk of pool failure. How bad of an idea is this?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Big_Expression7231@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago

I always understood as a balancing act in your vdev sizing. Too big = long rebuild times with so many disks spinning up every time. too small = wasted $ with TB loss to redundancy (raidz2 with 3 20tb disks only utilizes 33% of the TB purchased).

I've always felt you should calculate how many disks do you need to saturate your connection and go from there. 10gig trunk on your network then you'll want 1 vdev to be able to saturate a 10gig line. any larger than that you don't get any benefit from.