New 2nd volume (same or new pool)

[Midknight]

TS-EC1680U and 2x REXP-1620U-RP

The head unit and first expansion unit are full of drives under 1 pool and 1 volume. The volume I set with an inode of Max volume size 127tb, so I can't expand that any further.

The 2nd expansion unit will be the start of another volume

The question is,

Expand the above pool and create the new volume under it, or create a new pool for the new volume

Suggestions and reasons on each method would be appreciated.

[storageman]

Do you need one big volume?
Only you will really know.
Actually you could create a new pool/volume on the 2nd expansion with 6k Inode, copy data across/recreate default shares.
Then kill the head and 1st expansion pool/volume and add it to the 2nd expansion volume.

[Midknight]

The first and main volume is full, hence for adding more drives and another volume.

All I'm looking for is the positive or negatives on either adding drives to pool and start a new (2nd) volume, or have a new (2nd) pool for the new (2nd) volume.

[storageman]

If you have to create a new volume anyway I see no advantage adding the 2nd expansion into the pool, if will not add more speed because you are already at the limit where more disks make a difference.

Also a completely separate pool and volume is likely to be more resilient if the SAS connection fails as everything is completely separate (although Qnap does take volumes offline when SAS connections fail)

Hope you agree!

[Midknight]

My current pool is made up of 2 raid groups (raid 6).

The head unit makes up 15 drives for the first group, the 1st expansion unit is made up with 11 drives.

Now my thinking is with the 2nd expansion unit to start expanding the above pool with the new 3rd raid group, and start the new volume under this.

This way I won't have 2 separate pools with remaining space I left for the snapshots. So in theory I'm saving space there with the single pool.

And yes qnap takes these offline should the connection break, which I've never had, touch wood..

[storageman]

Not sure how that gives you more space for snapshots whether in one pool or two pools but clearly either approach will work.

[Midknight]

Probably worded incorrectly, not so much as space saving, but managing just 1 snapshot space, instead of, for example...

2 pools set each with 1tb snapshot space, which may only ever get 1/2 used by the time the weekly recycle comes.

Where with 1 pool I may only need to set 1tb space, and if that fills before the week cycle, it auto deletes the last snap shot. (Yes I know with 2 pools would still work the same way basically)

[storageman]

Sure, makes sense.

[Midknight]

It's crossed my mind many times, that maybe I should have chosen the 6k inode in the first place, which would have been a 250TB volume, but at the time I didn't think I would grow this system to this size.

But let's for example I was to have all the data backed up so I could destroy this volume and start again with a 6k inode.

How would I save the system setup and all apps so I wouldn't need to set the whole system up again?


It's just debating this idea that the time it would take isn't worth the hassle, but having the single 250tb volume over 2 volumes would be much nicer and cleaner option

[Thisisnotmyname]

It's crossed my mind many times, that maybe I should have chosen the 6k inode in the first place, which would have been a 250TB volume, but at the time I didn't think I would grow this system to this size.

But let's for example I was to have all the data backed up so I could destroy this volume and start again with a 6k inode.

How would I save the system setup and all apps so I wouldn't need to set the whole system up again?


It's just debating this idea that the time it would take isn't worth the hassle, but having the single 250tb volume over 2 volumes would be much nicer and cleaner option

System config can be exported but I don't believe that does anything about your apps.