Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 10:05:02 +0200 From: "Ronald Klop" <ronald-lists@klop.ws> To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS 10.1 send single snapshot - space 'used' irregularity Message-ID: <op.xwu92ocqkndu52@ronaldradial.radialsg.local> In-Reply-To: <20150409163900.Horde.ZLVwr91i2UaonmJT1bC-Pw1@www.vfemail.net> References: <20150409163900.Horde.ZLVwr91i2UaonmJT1bC-Pw1@www.vfemail.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
How about disk types? Do they use the same sector size? Which might give a different overhead. What is the layout of your pools? ZRAID1, 2 or 3, MIRROR? Regards, Ronald. On Thu, 09 Apr 2015 23:39:00 +0200, Rick Romero <rick@havokmon.com> wrote: > I have 3 servers, A, B, C. I'm building C to replace A, and replicating > the data to C from backup B. A is offsite in relation to B and C. > All servers are FreeBSD 10.1, except A - which is 9.2. > > I'm confused on disk usage. Not so much a GB here or there, but 250GB is > 'unaccounted for' on C. C and A should be a pretty close match. > > A - looks correct > > sysvolssd2/home used 495G - > sysvolssd2/home usedbysnapshots 37.9G - > sysvolssd2/home usedbydataset 456G - > sysvolssd2/home usedbychildren 669M - > sysvolssd2/home usedbyrefreservation0 - > sysvolssd2/home logicalused 585G - > > NAME SIZE ALLOC FREE CAP DEDUP HEALTH ALTROOT > sysvolssd2 1.39T 744G 680G 52% 1.00x ONLINE - > > B - looks correct (backup of A, holds more snapshots and other crap than > A) > sysvol/primessd_home used 777G - > sysvol/primessd_home usedbysnapshots 240G - > sysvol/primessd_home usedbydataset 537G - > sysvol/primessd_home usedbychildren 0 - > sysvol/primessd_home usedbyrefreservation0 - > sysvol/primessd_home logicalused 754G - > > NAME SIZE ALLOC FREE FRAG EXPANDSZ CAPDEDUP HEALTH > ALTROOT > sysvol 4.53T 2.43T 2.10T 20% - 53% > 1.00x ONLINE - > C - missing what appears to be the multiple snapshot data. Only the > latest snapshot was sent, not the entire dataset. So 531GB is close > enough to the 537G of B's dataset. > sysvol_enc/home used 758G - > sysvol_enc/home usedbysnapshots 3.00M - > sysvol_enc/home usedbydataset 752G - > sysvol_enc/home usedbychildren 5.84G - > sysvol_enc/home usedbyrefreservation0 - > sysvol_enc/home logicalused 531G - > NAME SIZE ALLOC FREE FRAG EXPANDSZ CAPDEDUP HEALTH > ALTROOT > sysvol_enc 1.39T 1.12T 277G 49% - 80% > 1.00x ONLINE - > > C is geli encrypted and B is not. > > Unfortunately when I check another server that's geli encrypted, it looks > fine: > > E - > nlsysvol/home used 13.8G - > nlsysvol/home usedbysnapshots 5.58G - > nlsysvol/home usedbydataset 7.78G - > nlsysvol/home usedbychildren 483M - > nlsysvol/home usedbyrefreservation0 - > nlsysvol/home logicalused 12.0G - > NAME SIZE ALLOC FREE FRAG EXPANDSZ CAPDEDUP HEALTH > ALTROOT > nlsysvol 115G 42.8G 72.2G - - 37% > 1.00x ONLINE - > > So the difference shouldn't be related to the encryption. It's almost as > if the send from B to C included all the incremental snapshots, but > didn't > actually account for them. Am I reading this wrong, or is something else > not right ? > Should I delete that dataset, re-send the entire original dataset, then > delete the incremental snapshots? > > It makes me a little concerned that deleting a snapshot might delete the > data which was written at that time, even though it was not deleted in > followup snapshots... > And I assume FRAG is fragmentation. 50% is a bit strange for a brand new > receive, isn't it? > > help. :) > > Rick > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?op.xwu92ocqkndu52>