Partition based ZFS, Forbidden 3-way Mirrors with 4 drives

All of this shenanigans are inspired by art of servers yt video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiVGOpMr87w

I’m in the process of building out a TrueNAS box and have not bought any drives yet. But I have four old notebook 2.5 inch drives of varying sizes:

Drive A(931G)
Drive B(698G)
Drive C(465G) 
Drive D(298G)

So to make three mirrors out of four drives I made a 165G partition on both the 931G drive and the 465G drive with fdisk in the shell as su:

Drive A(931G)
   /dev/sda1 2G
   /dev/sda2 165G
   /dev/sda3 764G
Drive B(698G)
   /dev/sdb1 2G
   /dev/sdb2 696G
Drive C(465G) 
   /dev/sdc1 2G
   /dev/sdc2 165G
   /dev/sdc3 298G
Drive D(298G)
   /dev/sdd1 2G
   /dev/sdd2 296G

Now I created four mirrors using the zpool add -f poolname mirror /dev/sdXX /dec/sdXX command to a already existing pool and removed the last disk in there before creating the last mirror. So the forbidden mirror looks like this:

Mirror 1 sda2 & sdc2
Mirror 2 sdb2 & sda3
Mirror 3 sdc3 & sdd2

It’s an interesting learning experience, to play around in a “test lab”.

But please don’t do this when you build your TrueNAS box to hold your data. The GUI and middleware might have a heart attack when a “member device” begins to fail.

It reminds me of this meme.

2 Likes

There is nothing wrong with playing like this, but if you want to do this in production use then you might be better off looking for a NAS O/S that supports this type of mixed drive usage (like UnRaid???)

1 Like

I definitely won’t do this once I start buying disks, as I want it to be worry free after I get the thinkering out of my system. In practice however I don’t really see how this would go wrong in daily operation as TrueNAS still has metal access to the disks and there is one drive of fault tolerance.

The negatives would be lower performance as the r/w head on the partitioned disks would need to jump between partitions. It could be a mess untangling a large pool made in this manner when replacing disks, and for sure resilvering would be interesting to say the least. I assume one would have to manually recreate the partitions lost on a replacement disk?

You kind of answered your own question.

Is it really worth it?

The value of a NAS is not simply “It works on day 1.” You want as little headache and complexity as possible for years to come.

For me no, not really. But depending on risk tolerance, budget and inherited hardware someone might find it useful.

That’s what Unraid is for.

To choose TrueNAS (or even ZFS in general) implies that you prioritize your data beyond a side hobby.

2 Likes

No.
And to have at least 20 char. long answer to better explain myself and comply with the forum: No.

1 Like

Be a yes man, not a no man:

YES YES YES YES YES!!!

3 Likes

…there is positive and negative, energy goes from greater potential to lower potential until equalized because that of lesser potential sinked/pulled it from the greater potential. The names: positive and negative is just names. Like in a plug, the male and female.

A bunch of woman jump in a rowing boat and have fun, they never got there, it was memorable.

A bunch of man jump in a rowing boat and have fun, they got there very fast, it was memorable.

As a man, is expected to post without a doubt, guiding. But you’re inviting people to think that maybe, just maybe… .

Nope. The answer is no. A redundant unquestionable no.

In this forum. Now, with a drink in hand, chatting along, we can talk about it. But in a post regarding TrueNAS as a possibility, without any bad vibe, the answer is still no. :slight_smile:

You would have to manually replace too.

Effectively you can’t use TrueNAS to manage the pool.

But yeah, I’ve done shenanigans like this.

Once it was to make an 8w RaidZ2 out of 3 disks.

Then I could replace each member with a full disk eventually…

1 Like

Badger Nope Gif GIFs | Tenor

5 Likes