Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:37:24 +0100 From: Stefan Esser <se@freebsd.org> To: Christer Solskogen <christer.solskogen@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ZFS / zpool size Message-ID: <4F15B1D4.9080907@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <CAMVU60ZtHp%2B_mhuUh-5RuLNW9XFRxBdfQxXu9vPEzw-P%2BrLUUw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAMVU60ZtHp%2B_mhuUh-5RuLNW9XFRxBdfQxXu9vPEzw-P%2BrLUUw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am 17.01.2012 16:47, schrieb Christer Solskogen: > Hi! > > I have a zpool called data, and I have some inconsistencies with sizes. > > $ zpool iostat > capacity operations bandwidth > pool alloc free read write read write > ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > data 3.32T 761G 516 50 56.1M 1.13M > > $ zfs list -t all > NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT > data 2.21T 463G 9.06G /data > > Can anyone throw any light on this? The ZFS numbers are 2/3 of the ZPOOL numbers for alloc. This looks like a raidz1 over 3 drives. The ZPOOL command shows disk blocks available and used (disk drive view), the ZFS command operates on the file-system level and shows blocks used to hold actual data or available for actual data (does not account for RAID parity overhead). > Is not free the same as AVAIL? Avail should be 2/3 of free, but I guess there is some overhead that reduces the number of available blocks. > I do not have any zfs snapshots, but some filesystems are compressed. Compression affects the ZPOOL and ZFS numbers in the same way, but "zfs list" and "df" will differ significantly for file-systems that contain compressible data. Regards, STefan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F15B1D4.9080907>