[zfs-discuss] recommendations for a 50 TB zpool?

Ulli Horlacher framstag at rus.uni-stuttgart.de
Sat Nov 3 20:32:04 EDT 2018


On Sun 2018-11-04 (00:13), Gordan Bobic via zfs-discuss wrote:
> IMO, disks much over 4TB are bad news. I suggest you stick with 4TB disks.

The server host has not so many disk bays.
Why are disks bigger than 4 TB bad?
Because of seek times?


> Avoid shingled or helium filled disks, or those under 7200rpm.

Avoiding SMR and <7200rpm is evident, but why are helium filled disks a
problem?


> Consult last few years worth of Backblaze statistics when choosing the
> disk brand and model to get.

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-stats-for-q2-2018/

HGST looks like a good choice.


> I concur with you that RAIDZ2 is a reasonable choice for reliability, but
> bear in mind that while this will be a reasonable choice for sequential
> workloads, performance will be very poor for random read workloads (with
> 7200 rpm disks, you will get 120 IOPS per vdev).

A F*EX server does mostly sequential reads and writes, there are no
databases or something like this.



-- 
Ullrich Horlacher              Server und Virtualisierung
Rechenzentrum TIK         
Universitaet Stuttgart         E-Mail: horlacher at tik.uni-stuttgart.de
Allmandring 30a                Tel:    ++49-711-68565868
70569 Stuttgart (Germany)      WWW:    http://www.tik.uni-stuttgart.de/
REF:<CAMx4oe2QBmd5oPCr1PrygEo7P-7C9eUFeTYUcL0DvhbHNcoAHA at mail.gmail.com>


More information about the zfs-discuss mailing list