From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 19 16:01:49 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@hub.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 0D065BE6 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:01:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from emre@gundogan.us) Received: from athena.awarent.com (unknown [IPv6:2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:feae:fc92]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFD517FB for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:01:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from emre@gundogan.us) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by athena.awarent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E93C6807E for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 12:01:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from athena.awarent.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (athena.awarent.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2tFDFc5NBMGJ for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 12:01:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <55843CF1.1070709@gundogan.us> Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 12:01:53 -0400 From: Emre Gundogan MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Expanding zfs+geli pool Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:01:49 -0000 Hi all, I have a 4-disk (2TB each) striped mirrored zfs pool consisting of geli vdevs in the following configuration: pool: mirror1: disk1 (2TB) disk2 (2TB) mirror2 disk3 (2TB) disk4 (2TB) I'd like to replace those disks with 4TB ones to essentially double the capacity of the pool. What's the recommended order of disks to 'zpool offline/replace/resilver (automatic)' in this case? In sequence, or can I replace them in the following order: disk1 -> disk3 -> disk2 -> disk4 ? Considering that two of the 4TB disks I am thinking of using in the grown pool are few months older than the others, I thought putting the older ones in separate mirrors would reduce the risk of pool becoming unavailable when they fail (possibly both together at the same time). Does this make sense, and is it possible to replace them in the odd order I described? Just a note: I only have 4 SATA ports available on this machine, and therefore can't have both old and replacement disk plugged in at the same time. Thank you, Emre.