Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 07:50:33 +0200 From: Gerrit =?UTF-8?B?S8O8aG4=?= <gerrit.kuehn@aei.mpg.de> To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: zfs capacity Message-ID: <20191021075033.6c9748c7@arc.aei.uni-hannover.de> In-Reply-To: <20191018113554.4f5822e3@arc.aei.uni-hannover.de> References: <20191018113554.4f5822e3@arc.aei.uni-hannover.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am Fri, 18 Oct 2019 11:35:54 +0200 schrieb Gerrit K=C3=BChn <gerrit.kuehn@aei.mpg.de>: Hi, > I just tried these two raidz2 setups with 36 disks: 3x 10+2, 4x 7+2. > The result is a bit puzzling for me, because I get the same capacity, > although one setup is using 6 drives for redundancy, the other is using > 8: For the record: I found this to be caused by allocation padding (and I was most irritated by the fact that in the case I tested it turned out to yield /exactly/ the same number of usable space regardless of having two more data disks). Anyway, I found this table very helpful, so I'd like to share the link (even if this may be well-known to others already, it took me some time to find it): <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pdu_X2tR4ztF6_HLtJ-Dc4ZcwUdt6fkCjp= nXxAEFlyA/edit#gid=3D804965548> cu Gerrit
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20191021075033.6c9748c7>