Return to



Yup, and you can also have a mix of different sized VDEVs in a pool and ZFS will balance across them.

For quite some time i was running with 2x mirrors of different sizes. Performance may not be optimal, but if you just need to expand space, so long as you can get enough disks to fully upgrade a single VDEV in your pool (or even add another VDEV), you can.

If all you care about is resiliency (vs. performance - e.g., for archive/backup/nas type storage), then adding a VDEV to an existing pool is no big deal.



Thats is the current mentality. Make mirrored pairs and upgrade 2 disks at a time.

If you have a set of say 7 disks in raid z2. Not untill every disk in the 7 disk pool is upgraded can you resize so to speak.

BTRFS lets you mix and match anything and even rebuild the drives as raid 0 or 1 and 5 and 6 but 5 and 6 are possibly broken.

Its like to actually finish a FS is too hard. Start a new one because its is easy to have excuses your FS it broken. Its beta.



Sure that’s a valid complaint, unlike “fixed disk sizes” which is incorrect.

1 Like


i believe i read or heard from a good source that expanding vdevs with more drives is something ZOL wanted to do.
This was less then 1.5 year ago.



I find myself happily incorrect all to often. There is much to learn.



The thing is, there are very few people who have the experience and mentality required to get this stuff right.

A lot of people think “oh, that’s an easy problem!” and then when they get into the weeds they realise that actually, no it isn’t.

IMHO, ZFS has the correct mindset and some of the “limitations” may be annoying, sure, but mostly come down to “don’t make dumb decisions when setting up your pool, by being cheap” and “reliability for 24/7 operation isn’t entirely free”.

If you want max performance just run RAID0

If you care about long term storage of your data, then ZFS is imho the only real option.

also, ZFS originated at sun, with some very clever sun engineers. hence, i trust the design is mostly right. i think the proof is in the pudding… ZFS on linux less trustworthy IMHO… but still better than EXT as the design principles are right, you’re just dealing with implementation bugs.

1 Like


I agree. In a world with torrent pirates and huge fille downloads of Game of Thrones to day trading where nanoseconds matter.

Intel is bleeding the FS into ram with optane and persistant memory. What the hell FS will that be :stuck_out_tongue:

Im sure it will be a kernel ,memory management thing. Not a file system cause FS are broken.



you’ll be thrilled to learn about NVDIMMs then

1 Like


Thread title should be…

ZFS vs *

1 Like


ZFS needs one of those “calvin urinating on whatever” memes.

1 Like