From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 17 16:05:12 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EB76106564A for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:05:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lattera@gmail.com) Received: from mail-tul01m020-f182.google.com (mail-tul01m020-f182.google.com [209.85.214.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3958A8FC0A for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:05:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by obcwo16 with SMTP id wo16so3528089obc.13 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:05:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=nJowQR2kf06RE8sjj4qREuhCyHGt7qU3CyaVlOef4Ww=; b=P+0FX4waWHr9EJcj/BGt5eOyPuxk6Robn7JeMrlYedgVrRCgei2uvIoxmW5lL+LOBT uY6XO+y+nejswd8RsM5zP0/NPF2i/oL/uwRc5gvnMGmvjRZlQL96aF/Bpo/G4ACS8B8J c2Lqb5Tl27MU224KZwymI42nNQxdMJ3FM6vww= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.7.42 with SMTP id g10mr15587284oba.7.1326816311595; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:05:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.182.33.233 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:05:11 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:05:11 -0700 Message-ID: From: Shawn Webb To: Christer Solskogen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: FreeBSD Stable Subject: Re: ZFS / zpool size X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:05:12 -0000 I don't think so. On an OpenIndiana server I run, it shows almost a full 1TB difference: shawn@indianapolis:~$ zpool list tank NAME SIZE ALLOC FREE CAP DEDUP HEALTH ALTROOT tank 4.06T 1.62T 2.44T 39% 1.00x ONLINE - shawn@indianapolis:~$ zfs list tank NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT tank 1.08T 1.58T 45.3K /tank shawn@indianapolis:~$ zpool iostat tank capacity operations bandwidth pool alloc free read write read write ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- tank 1.62T 2.44T 4 22 473K 165K On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Christer Solskogen wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Shawn Webb wrote: >> The `zpool` command does not show all the overhead from ZFS. The `zfs` >> command does. That's why the `zfs` command shows less available space >> than the `zpool` command. >> > > A overhead of almost 300GB? That seems a bit to much, don't you think? > The pool consist of one vdev with two 1,5TB disks and one 3TB in raidz1. > > -- > chs,