^ Solid performance from ZFS on spinning rust. I don't like paying for free software and having artificial limits on how I can use it but you know. The choice on Unraid or other platform is up to you. You have to sacrifice capacity for performance. The reason for this is to allow the filesystem (both filesystem types) to be able to access more than one device at a time in read operations. If performance is your primary concern you want Plan B. ZFS has better caching algorithms than native Linux does. ZFS can run in Raidz-1 (like a raid1) or with mirrored vdevs in a stripe (like a raid 10). If you would like to continue to use a free DDNS service there are many to choose from, however, we can not assist you in setting up 3rd party products or services. This service provided Dynamic DNS service for legacy Night Owl devices that are no longer supported. (separate system or cloud or something like that) As of December 5th, 2020 the free DDNS service has been retired. To be a proper backup you need to have the data somewhere else. Separate pools are not a backup solution because a software error or malicious program can delete both pools available to the system. You don't need separate pools unless you want to have that, the concept design for ZFS is "pooled storage" so you can add everything in one unless you don't want that for some reason. So I won’t blow my budget and have good performance. I could buy another 4tb Wd red and make it a raid 10. Plex, Steamlink/Moonlight, Vms, Docker, Backups and few game server + Ts3 in one pool.īut that’s not how things work on unraid right? I wanted an all in 1 Solution with zfs on unraid 3x4tb raidz1. But if performance is 1st, and reliability/features 2nd, ZFS is not way to go. ZFS does get 'better' with lots of RAM, when lots of stuff you need is in ARC, but similar can be said for other FS's when stuff you use is in RAM cache.ĭon't get me wrong, I love ZFS, and really prefer it myself. ZFS definitely has it's reasons and place to use (well, I use it in my NAS with 3 drives in RAIDZ1), but performance is not it's best suite. If you have low count of drives - like 3-4 drives, and you want max performance, ZFS is poor choice. I did not say ZFS is *slow*, but it's slower compared to other non-COW filesystems. Obviously not with raidzN, because parity arrays are inherently slow and are essentially a way to create efficient bulk storage.Īdding a bunch of simple mirror pairs as separate vdevs into a pool would be one example of relatively fast configuration, but it will definitely need to be more than 1-2 vdevs to be noticeably effective. ZFS can be actually pretty good in terms of performance when configured appropriately.
0 kommentar(er)
