Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 00:59:25 -0500 From: Zaphod Beeblebrox <zbeeble@gmail.com> To: Peter Jeremy <peter@rulingia.com> Cc: FreeBSD Filesystems <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RFC: Suggesting ZFS "best practices" in FreeBSD Message-ID: <CACpH0MfpF65N9hHxD9o6UYjF9BGWF3TAUj004tWDxq-oX-N1Vg@mail.gmail.com> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CACpH0MfpF65N9hHxD9o6UYjF9BGWF3TAUj004tWDxq-oX-N1Vg>