From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 9 02:08:29 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6F7E16A41F for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2007 02:08:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joe@tao.org.uk) Received: from mailhost.tao.org.uk (tao.uscs.susx.ac.uk [139.184.131.101]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C40813C448 for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2007 02:08:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joe@tao.org.uk) Received: from genius.tao.org.uk (wireless58.dhcp.tao.org.uk [82.153.225.58]) by mailhost.tao.org.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CF6A5CB5; Sat, 9 Jun 2007 03:08:28 +0100 (BST) Received: by genius.tao.org.uk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 65EF14102; Sat, 9 Jun 2007 03:08:27 +0100 (BST) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 03:08:26 +0100 From: Josef Karthauser To: Bakul Shah Message-ID: <20070609020826.GA7887@genius.tao.org.uk> Mail-Followup-To: Josef Karthauser , Bakul Shah , current@FreeBSD.org References: <20070608223500.GA1250@genius.tao.org.uk> <20070609011724.B97CD5B52@mail.bitblocks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: <20070609011724.B97CD5B52@mail.bitblocks.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-06) Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: zfs drive configurations? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 02:08:29 -0000 On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 06:17:24PM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote: >=20 > > What if I have 5 200gb drives configured as a raidz pool, and then I > > replace one of the 200gb drives with a 400gb one. Operationally what > > would I do? >=20 > I believe you can do something like >=20 > zpool replace >=20 > The new device will get "resilvered" -- get all the missing > data put on it and then brought up for operation. This can > take a while. >=20 > Note that you will not be able to use the extra disk until > *all* the disks in a group (mirror or raid) have been > replaced with bigger disks. Does it make sense to partition my disks into some nominal smaller chunks: D1a-g, D2a-g, ... D5a-g and run a number of raidz across the drives in parallel, D1a D2a .. D5a, etc? Joe