From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Feb 26 05:59:26 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8385D3F4
 for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 05:59:26 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from zbeeble@gmail.com)
Received: from mail-ve0-f181.google.com (mail-ve0-f181.google.com
 [209.85.128.181]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48DBCEA2
 for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 05:59:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ve0-f181.google.com with SMTP id d10so2970638vea.40
 for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 21:59:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id
 :subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
 bh=gnaumDMx2vkbvEwuoJwziDUcrG5di7rBiUFs0x1Xy3g=;
 b=vn7/Zmqu4A8+xhkl+KwqyrvKFHiiqI9To2LmX9xCExZ/NHqLvuQ3lKw2w5qHZXk5Hl
 HqVqXcMUCVnVjVBQ31DaOmS5uUc6cqqu0A5nIp0E0I9Dj8s/AwuLvyS6/T32PeNbm6l5
 QGK5i8r5TYeaWTYMwITsnQOdofwHjIs2oSW5AVmRpfXvbLoBfGDRPAl9T4LT+zZ6gSds
 eF5ehD5saoXiYd7S6w4jmX3BY7YOWl2qOmB7hiyXGBJQQAGc9sIac6jF8j5Rsuo7+geR
 AsE8Odzr61HW3NPu4Y1BJOB+Ejcl4+QIZ+2XUqpha1FV6a4GZD6OJqv2goOe0a/Rtmrm
 9dzw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.220.222.8 with SMTP id ie8mr11099897vcb.27.1361858365523;
 Mon, 25 Feb 2013 21:59:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.232.6 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 21:59:25 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20130123111852.GM30633@server.rulingia.com>
References: <314B600D-E8E6-4300-B60F-33D5FA5A39CF@sarenet.es>
 <AAE9CC17-B5C4-43DC-B86B-2F498FCA5AD4@deman.com>
 <20130123111852.GM30633@server.rulingia.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 00:59:25 -0500
Message-ID: <CACpH0MfpF65N9hHxD9o6UYjF9BGWF3TAUj004tWDxq-oX-N1Vg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: Suggesting ZFS "best practices" in FreeBSD
From: Zaphod Beeblebrox <zbeeble@gmail.com>
To: Peter Jeremy <peter@rulingia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14
Cc: FreeBSD Filesystems <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-fs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 05:59:26 -0000

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Peter Jeremy <peter@rulingia.com> wrote:

> On 2013-Jan-22 17:27:13 -0800, Michael DeMan <freebsd@deman.com> wrote:
>


> >#2.  Ensure a little extra space is left on the drive since if the whole
> drive is used, a replacement may be a tiny bit smaller and will not work.
>
> As someone else has mentioned, recent ZFS allows some slop here.  But
> I still think it's worthwhile carving out some space to allow for a
> marginally smaller replacement disk.
>

I'm somewhat interested in this point.  Not that we should miss a few meg
on a multi-terrabyte disk, but in my recent experience, all the drive
manufacturers seem to "agree" on the number of sectors for a certain size
of disk.  I'm just not sure we need to leave for the allowance of a smaller
disk.  larger (than required) disks already work anyways.