Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 14:49:37 +0200 From: Peter <pmc@citylink.dinoex.sub.org> To: Peter Jeremy <peter@rulingia.com> Cc: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz>, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Waht is the minimum free space ... (Full Report) Message-ID: <20190517124937.GA11835@gate.oper.dinoex.org> In-Reply-To: <20190517053043.GF98005@server.rulingia.com> References: <20190515204243.GA67445@gate.oper.dinoex.org> <60d57363-eb5c-e985-82ad-30f03b06a4c6@quip.cz> <20190517010239.GA34758@gate.oper.dinoex.org> <20190517053043.GF98005@server.rulingia.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 03:30:43PM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote: ! On 2019-May-17 03:02:39 +0200, Peter <pmc@citylink.dinoex.sub.org> wrote: ! >The original idea was to check if ZFS can grow a raid5. ! ! I've done this (see https://bugs.au.freebsd.org/dokuwiki/zfsraid), though I ! also migrated from RAIDZ1 to RAIDZ2 in the process. If this process no ! longer works (that page is 4 years old), it would seem that there has been ! an unfortunate regression. You don't mention setting "autoexpand=on" - I suppose it would not work without that. What we have here is most likely not a problem with the raid or it's growth, but a kind of "autority conflict" between ZFS and GPT on who is going to manage the underlying partitions. (Which doesn't surprize me - if I were ZFS, I would be quite frustrated to run under GPT.)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20190517124937.GA11835>