From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 15 11:14:30 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A625F1065672 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 11:14:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ronald-freebsd8@klop.yi.org) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.78]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C7568FC0C for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 11:14:30 +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 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SJNPX-0007SG-Q6 for freebsd-fs@freebsd.org; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 13:14:28 +0200 Received: from dhcp-077-251-052-224.chello.nl ([77.251.52.224] helo=pinky) by smtp.greenhost.nl with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SJNPY-0007t6-5b for freebsd-fs@freebsd.org; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 13:14:28 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org References: <4F8825E5.3040809@gmail.com> <1334323707.4f8829fbe801e@www.hyperdesktop.nl> Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 13:14:25 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Ronald Klop" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Opera Mail/11.62 (Win32) X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Spam-Level: / X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50 autolearn=disabled version=3.2.5 X-Scan-Signature: e462de357cb394d64966911c06262bc8 Subject: Re: ZFS and disk usage X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 11:14:30 -0000 On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 17:27:10 +0200, Johannes Totz wrote: > On 13/04/2012 14:28, Mark Schouten wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Op Vrijdag, 13-04-2012 om 15:11 schreef Volodymyr Kostyrko: >>>> These are fiesystems that are created with the following >>>> command. zfs create -V ${size}GB ${ZFS_ROOT}/${diskname} >>> >>> `zfs create -V` withous `-s` creates reserved volume that eats all >>> needed space immediately. Technically zfs pool is filled only for >>> 23%, but logically you have only 138G left unassigned. >> >> I understand. However, the created volumes should use a total of >> 1211GB. That's not 1.6TB like zfs list says. But 1211 + 431 >> (referred) does come close to 1.6TB.n And 1.6 TB still isn't the >> 1.77TB that's in the zpool. >> >> I have this feeling that zfs has reserved the space for each volume, >> but counts data written to the volumes in usage of the main >> filesystem. Mainly because zfs list shows me that the volumes have >> only 16KB referenced, where /storage has 431GB referenced. > > Without checking the numbers myself... > Note that zpool and zfs do not agree on (free) space accounting: zpool > shows "raw" space, whereas zfs includes metadata overhead for itself. > > Small rant: I dont understand why zpool and zfs show different things. > If you have an integrated storage stack then why not show consistent > numbers? Is there any use for this extra (mis-)information that > zpool-vs-zfs provides? > It isn't integrated that far as you might think. That is why you have zpool and zfs tools. These are 2 separate things. You can also put a zvol + ufs or zvol + iscsi on the zpool and not use zfs. How would zpool know about ufs or iscsi usage? Or how would ufs know about the underlying zpool+zvol? Ronald.