Selfhosted

39435 readers

7 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam posting.
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Replacing drive with a larger drive in zfs (lemm.ee)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Hi all!

I'm in the process of migrating my home server from Unraid to TrueNAS with a ZFS pool, as well as upping storage from 2 6TB drives to 4. Unfortunately, because of either my bad luck or incompetence, it seems like one of the drives has died. So, here's my question. I've read up a bit on resilvering and I know that if I replace the dead drive with a larger drive, the pool will be unable to use that extra space until the remaining drives are upgraded, but would there be any other drawbacks? Especially if the pool was left running in this configuration for an extended period.

I definitely see myself upgrading the pool to larger drives in the future, and it would be nice to save myself buying an extra drive that may end up getting replaced before the end of its life. (Note: I'm aware that resilvering isn't the safest way of upgrading a pool, but the data on the pool is either backed up or non-essential, so I'm fine with the risks)

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

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I haven’t seen any deleterious effects from what you’re proposing and I haven’t heard of any either. Were it me, I’d go for it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Agreed. It’s not a safety issue it just won’t use the full drives capacity until they replace the other smaller drives