Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:40:37 -0500 From: Barry Pederson <bp@barryp.org> To: Alexandre Biancalana <biancalana@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: zfs: df and zpool list report different size Message-ID: <4630B9E5.9000606@barryp.org> In-Reply-To: <8e10486b0704260701w3a6ca86hb833de23849514df@mail.gmail.com> References: <8e10486b0704260701w3a6ca86hb833de23849514df@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alexandre Biancalana wrote: > Hi list, > > I update one machine to -CURRENT (yesterday), and now I'm creating zfs > filesystem using the following devices: > > ad9: 305245MB <Seagate ST3320620AS 3.AAE> at ata4-slave SATA150 > ad11: 305245MB <Seagate ST3320620AS 3.AAE> at ata5-slave SATA150 > > Next I created the pool: > > # zpool create backup raidz ad9 ad11 > # mount > /dev/ad8s1a on / (ufs, local) > devfs on /dev (devfs, local) > backup on /backup (zfs, local) > > # df -h > Filesystem Size Used Avail Capacity Mounted on > /dev/ad8s1a 72G 2.2G 64G 3% / > devfs 1.0K 1.0K 0B 100% /dev > backup 293G 0B 293G 0% /backup > > # zpool list > NAME SIZE USED AVAIL CAP HEALTH ALTROOT > backup 596G 222K 596G 0% ONLINE - > > > > My doubt is why zpool list and df -h report different size ? Which of then > is correct and should I trust ? The zpool size is correct in totalling up the usable size on the pool's drives, but it's not telling you how much is taken up by redundancy, so it's probably not a useful number to you. The "df -h" is also correct and probably more useful. "zfs list" should show a similar useful number. Barry
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4630B9E5.9000606>