Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 12:36:11 +1100 From: Emil Mikulic <emikulic@gmail.com> To: d@delphij.net Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: No more free space after upgrading to 10.1 and zpool upgrade Message-ID: <20141119013611.GA52102@core.summit> In-Reply-To: <546B9754.4060906@delphij.net> References: <CA%2Bq%2BTcqo2CL%2B00-4RTD1=WStOSYtawwsZbC1tpZ1G9CbiBp_Dw@mail.gmail.com> <20141116080128.GA20042@exhan.dylanleigh.net> <CA%2Bq%2BTcoC4gTPqGc_V3xv%2BcWxJuB2r8YioH_NLfaj=5xwsaXW0w@mail.gmail.com> <20141118054443.GA40514@core.summit> <546B8203.5040607@platinum.linux.pl> <546B9754.4060906@delphij.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:00:36AM -0800, Xin Li wrote: > On 11/18/14 09:29, Adam Nowacki wrote: > > This commit is to blame: > > http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=268455 > > > > 3.125% of disk space is reserved. This is the sort of thing I suspected, but I didn't spot this commit. > Note that the reserved space is so that one can always delete files, > etc. to get the pool back to a usable state. What about the "truncate -s0" trick? That doesn't work reliably? > I've added a new tunable/sysctl in r274674, but note that tuning is > not recommended Thanks!! Can you give us an example of how (and when) to tune the sysctl? Regarding r268455, this is kind of a gotcha for people who are running their pools close to full - should this be mentioned in UPDATING or in the release notes? I understand that ZFS needs free space to be able to free more space, but 3% of a large pool is a lot of bytes.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20141119013611.GA52102>