I’m relatively new to the world of NASes and I’ve chosen Rockstor as my OS. This morning, my system consisted of Qty 4, 2 TB hard drives as a RAID 10. I installed two more identical drives this morning at 8:15 AM. I used the web interface to add these two drives to my main pool and started a balance. It is now 1:03 PM, nearly 5 hours later, and the “Percent finished” of the balances is still 0%. I have approximately 1.5 TB of data total. Is this normal?
Edit:The balance is complete now, it just didn’t indicate the percentage correctly. It went from 0 straight to 100%.
I have a weekly scrub set up for every Friday night (my drives are refurbs with 3 years on them so I’m being overly cautious). The task history shows the scrubs completing within 3 seconds. Is this normal? This can’t indicate the total scrub time, maybe this indicates the time it takes to initiate the scrub?
I’ve only had my system running for about 3 weeks now. One of the scrubs that was scheduled has a status of “Error” but I wasn’t able to figure out what the error was. Once I noticed the issue, I manually started a scrub. it appears to have taken about 70 minutes to run according to the log, and the status is “finished” so I don’t think anything is really wrong.
SMART data (smartctl -i -a /dev/sdf | grep Rea) shows one drive with a single Raw Read Error Rate, but 0 reallocated sectors for all drives. I think my drives are OK.
Thanks. I think the Reallocated_Sector_Ct is what you need to keep an eye on to catch a drive before a catastrophic failure. If it is ever non-zero, it indicates bad sectors and is often (but not always) a precursor to drive failure.
The Raw_Read_Error_Rate, from what I’ve read, indicates possible communication errors such as bad SATA cables or something of the sort. I don’t know what “normal” is, but I have 6 refurbished Hitachi drives each with 30k hours on them and only a single Raw_Read_Error_Rate among them all.
The UI needs a bit of improvement as I’ve indicated in my other reply. Regarding balance times, when we trigger a balance, btrfs essentially rewrites the entire filesystem. so the time it takes is proportional to the amount of data. redundancy profile is also another factor. We can improve this with smart usage of balance filters. something we are considering.
I just wanted to confirm it’s a RAID 5/6 Pool. This is expected behaviour. Hopefully the BTRFS developers will improve the performance soon. Also, I wonder how it compares to HW RAID 5/6 resilver times. It would be great if someone can provide a HW reference point as well.
On other RAID profiles, it should be much faster as mentioned elsewhere in this post.