Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:21:27 -0700 From: Shawn Webb <lattera@gmail.com> To: Tom Evans <tevans.uk@googlemail.com> Cc: Christer Solskogen <christer.solskogen@gmail.com>, FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ZFS / zpool size Message-ID: <CADt0fhw=_a3x=3wD3kBmmWmebEw0y9-WgPGe%2BSBeE4A7YkY=Dg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAFHbX1LMCPhkEYH=rHbC9bct8mWVSFo2_-brfquvfQKK9bUr-w@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAMVU60ZtHp%2B_mhuUh-5RuLNW9XFRxBdfQxXu9vPEzw-P%2BrLUUw@mail.gmail.com> <CADt0fhyg8uXQG8SjWPL2DizZRNTdN9poRjo8Y=c62vN4W7iK6w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMVU60ahgmyK60h83jN9r0VYAWROnMtuz5K_1db0_p=EUZUm5Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAFHbX1LMCPhkEYH=rHbC9bct8mWVSFo2_-brfquvfQKK9bUr-w@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
shawn@indianapolis:~$ pfexec format Searching for disks...done AVAILABLE DISK SELECTIONS: 0. c1d0 <WDC WD30- WD-WCAWZ084341-0001-2.73TB> /pci@0,0/pci-ide@11/ide@0/cmdk@0,0 1. c1d1 <WDC WD30- WD-WCAWZ087742-0001-2.73TB> /pci@0,0/pci-ide@11/ide@0/cmdk@1,0 2. c2d0 <Unknown-Unknown-0001 cyl 30397 alt 2 hd 255 sec 63> /pci@0,0/pci-ide@11/ide@1/cmdk@0,0 3. c2d1 <ST315003- 9VS25XB-0001-1.36TB> /pci@0,0/pci-ide@11/ide@1/cmdk@1,0 4. c4d0 <Unknown-Unknown-0001 cyl 30397 alt 2 hd 255 sec 63> /pci@0,0/pci-ide@14,1/ide@1/cmdk@0,0 Specify disk (enter its number): ^C shawn@indianapolis:~$ zpool status tank pool: tank state: ONLINE scan: scrub repaired 0 in 4h53m with 0 errors on Tue Dec 20 12:03:36 2011 config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM tank ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1-0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1d1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2d1 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Tom Evans <tevans.uk@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Christer Solskogen > <christer.solskogen@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. >> > > Confused about your disks - can you show the output of zpool status. > > If you have a raidz of N disks with a minimum size of Y GB, you can > expect ``zpool list'' to show a size of N*Y and ``zfs list'' to show a > size of roughly (N-1)*Y. > > So, on my box with 2 x 6 x 1.5 TB drives in raidz, I see a zpool size > of 16.3 TB, and a zfs size of 13.3 TB. > > Cheers > > Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADt0fhw=_a3x=3wD3kBmmWmebEw0y9-WgPGe%2BSBeE4A7YkY=Dg>