Recent content by zfsgeek

Those are some wise words and I fully agree with it. Copies were implemented to mitigate read errors and not provide redundancy against disk failures.

It is hilarious how two particular users take the comments to the extreme and just move off-topic. That aside, Windows Storage Spaces is always an alternative as opposed to SnapRAID/unraid. Anyone has comments regarding that?

Joe, you need to take a chill pill. the OP (or moderators) should be posting comments regarding what is relevant to the discussion or not, and afraid that is not you. And are you proposing to run SnapRAID for the media file server portion and ZFS on the other?

It depends very much on how much of a media server your box really is. I elected to run ZFS because of its superior read performance, its ability to snapshot without causing a huge performance penalty (on-the-fly) and its mere flexibility in expanding the pool. No doubt, I use it also as a file...

SnapRAID is a simple and free solution for those less willing to deal with sophistication. At a simple level, it resembles more of a RAID4 configuration (assuming you start off with similar sized drives). One of the supposed benefit of SnapRAID is only losing data on the drive that fails as...

8GB of ECC RAM is not a problem with ZFS. The recommended configuration is 1GB per 1TB of storage, but I've done 1GB per 4TB of storage and it works just fine even without a log or cache device. ZFS is not that CPU demanding. Why not try running ZFS on the hardware you have first before...

Why not check out the features on Synology's site instead? http://www.synology.com/en-global/dsm/

C5 Current Pending Sector Count states 74 (in hex) = 116 (in dec). I would recommend copying all your important data out as soon as possible if you do not already have a backup. Thereafter, attempt to do a full format (not a quick one) and monitor if the sectors move from "current pending...

If they can be read, they would be remapped to a spare area. Otherwise, they would be marked as bad and the sector would be reallocated to a spare area without the original data. Post a screenshot of the SMART attributes instead of the scan summary. Look for the raw values instead of the...

With the vast majority of the users here being rather savvy, a vendor lock-in model imposed by the Drobo is a definite no-no. I'll second Synology. If you want the features of a Synology and go the DIY route, you could consider Xpenology (an operating system)

You might want to consider if high availability is a concern. If you do elect to use the m500, the frequency of replacing the drive could be higher, and thus should be factored in the planned maintenance schedule.

Try to run an extended smart test, if that fails too I'll definitely request a warranty replacement. > smartctl -t long /dev/<>

Some tools you could use 1. h2testw (link) 2. badblocks with the -w option (link)

Check if it's a Seagate drive. There was a batch of older drives that incremented the Reallocated Count incorrectly.

Based on the screenshots it looks like add-on icons from HDD Sentinel.