Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 13:04:52 +0200 From: Stefan Bethke <stb@lassitu.de> To: Marco van Lienen <marco+freebsd-current@lordsith.net> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: RAIDZ capacity (was ZFS version 15 committed to head) Message-ID: <86DB038E-D49B-4793-B966-6B5D29FA3B84@lassitu.de> In-Reply-To: <20100717105134.GB13626@lordsith.net> References: <4C3C7202.7090103@FreeBSD.org> <20100717101459.GA13626@lordsith.net> <9E4FCF4C-7A69-426E-9F39-B5487D4CB07C@lassitu.de> <20100717105134.GB13626@lordsith.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am 17.07.2010 um 12:51 schrieb Marco van Lienen: > On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 12:25:56PM +0200, you (Stefan Bethke) sent the = following to the -current list: >> Am 17.07.2010 um 12:14 schrieb Marco van Lienen: >>=20 >>> # zpool list pool1 >>> NAME SIZE USED AVAIL CAP HEALTH ALTROOT >>> pool1 5.44T 147K 5.44T 0% ONLINE - >> ... >>> zfs list however only shows: >>> # zfs list pool1 >>> NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT >>> pool1 91.9K 3.56T 28.0K /pool1 >>>=20 >>> I just lost the space of an entire hdd! >>=20 >> zpool always shows the raw capacity (without redundancy), zfs the = actual available capacity. >=20 > I have read many things about those differences, but why then does zfs = on opensolaris report more available space whereas FreeBSD does not? > That would imply that my friend running osol build 117 couldn't fill = up his raidz pool past the 3.56T. You didn't show us how your friends pool is set up. With RAIDZ1, the capacity of one of the devices in the pool is used for = redundancy, with RAIDZ2 it's two disks worth. So three 2TB disks with = RAIDZ1 gives you 4TB net capacity. If you don't care about redundancy, = use a simple concatenation, i. e. don't specify mirror, raidz or raidz2 = when creating the pool. Stefan --=20 Stefan Bethke <stb@lassitu.de> Fon +49 151 14070811
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86DB038E-D49B-4793-B966-6B5D29FA3B84>