From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 10 08:06:25 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67524A5D for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 08:06:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26288B3F for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 08:06:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.104.138]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YgTvz-0005sg-D8 for freebsd-fs@freebsd.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 10:06:15 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS 10.1 send single snapshot - space 'used' irregularity References: <20150409163900.Horde.ZLVwr91i2UaonmJT1bC-Pw1@www.vfemail.net> Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 10:05:02 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Ronald Klop" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20150409163900.Horde.ZLVwr91i2UaonmJT1bC-Pw1@www.vfemail.net> User-Agent: Opera Mail/1.0 (Win32) X-Authenticated-As-Hash: 398f5522cb258ce43cb679602f8cfe8b62a256d1 X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Spam-Level: - X-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED, BAYES_20, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Scan-Signature: 9484ae446d4f83cee8bf28db5146d16c X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 08:06:25 -0000 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 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"