this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2024
15 points (89.5% liked)

Selfhosted

40113 readers
1005 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:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. 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.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. 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]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
15
How dumb would it be to run single-node ceph? (lemmy.ml)
submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
21 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I really want to run ceph because it fits a number of criteria I have: gradually adding storage, mismatched disks, fault tolerance, erasure encoding, encryption, support out-of-the-box from other software (like Incus).

But then I look at the hardware suggestions, and they seem like an up-front investment and ongoing cost to keep at least three machines evenly matched on RAM and physical storage. I also want more of a single-box NAS.

Would it be idiotic to put a ceph setup all on one machine? I could run three mons on it with separate physical device backing each so I don't lose everything from a disk failure with those. I'm not too concerned about speed or network partitioning, this would be lukewarm storage for me.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

You don't migrate the data from the existing z1. It keeps running and stays in use. You add another z1 or z2 to the pool.

If the vdevs are not all the same redundancy level am I right that there's no guarantee which level of redundancy any particular file is getting?

This is a problem. You don't know which file ends up on which vdev. If you only use mirror vdevs then you could remove vdevs you no longer want to use and ZFS will transfer the data from them to the remaining vdevs, assuming there's space. As far as I know you can't remove vdevs from pools that have RAIDz vdevs, you can only add vdevs. So if you want to have guaranteed 2-drive failure for every file, then yes, you'd have to create a new pool with RAIDz2, move data to it. Then you could add your existing drives to it in another RAIDz2 vdev.

Removing RAIDz vdevs might become possible in the future. There's already a feature that allows expanding existing RAIDz vdevs but it's fairly new so I'm personally not considering it in my expansion plans.