Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:17:57 -0600 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> To: Zaphod Beeblebrox <zbeeble@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: More on ZFS filesystem sizes. Message-ID: <20081217231757.GE27041@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> In-Reply-To: <5f67a8c40812171351j66dc5484pee631198030a5739@mail.gmail.com> References: <5f67a8c40812171351j66dc5484pee631198030a5739@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--imjhCm/Pyz7Rq5F2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 04:51:00PM -0500, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote: > So... I posted before about the widly different sizes reported by zfs list > and du -h for my ports repository. Nobody explained this to any satisfyi= ng > degree. >=20 > I now have another quandry. I have ZFS on my laptop (two drives, mirrore= d) > and I "zfs send" backups to my big array (6 drives, raid-Z1). The problem > is that they don't match up: >=20 > On the 6 drive array: >=20 > vr2/backup/canoe/64/usr@20080307-1541 746M - 4.82G - > vr2/backup/canoe/64/usr@20080309-1443 221M - 4.79G - > vr2/backup/canoe/64/usr@20080319-1722 334M - 4.97G - > vr2/backup/canoe/64/usr@20080329-0041 27.8M - 5.24G - > vr2/backup/canoe/64/usr@20080402-2300 21.9M - 5.27G - > vr2/backup/canoe/64/usr@20080416-0223 18.5M - 5.29G - > vr2/backup/canoe/64/usr@20080417-0117 18.6M - 5.29G - >=20 > On the 2 drive laptop: >=20 > canoe/64/usr@20080307-1541 738M - 4.76G - > canoe/64/usr@20080309-1443 217M - 4.73G - > canoe/64/usr@20080319-1722 330M - 4.90G - > canoe/64/usr@20080329-0041 26.7M - 5.17G - > canoe/64/usr@20080402-2300 20.6M - 5.20G - > canoe/64/usr@20080416-0223 17.5M - 5.22G - > canoe/64/usr@20080417-0117 17.5M - 5.22G - >=20 > ... note that the snapshot sizes differ by many megabytes ... and not > seemingly any fixed amount, either. Have you tried asking the zfs developers? I'd tend to assume zfs is reporting the amount of space it thinks it's using and that as long as the numbers are close to expected it's not likely to be a FreeBSD issue. It might well be the case that a given bit of data takes different amounts of space when stored on different pool types due to needing different meta data. -- Brooks --imjhCm/Pyz7Rq5F2 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFJSYikXY6L6fI4GtQRAjecAJ98uV9dDJUF8oe3yHArF2AmzyHpGwCeJGPv yuuAa+FxYg2FPEmJuKYGRv8= =H5XJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --imjhCm/Pyz7Rq5F2--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081217231757.GE27041>