From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 29 04:03:15 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBF8E16A418 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 04:03:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from n-butcher=freebsd-current=freebsd.org=sbibybnr@fusiongol.com) Received: from smtp02.dentaku.gol.com (smtp02.dentaku.gol.com [203.216.5.72]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8F6F13C465 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 04:03:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from n-butcher=freebsd-current=freebsd.org=sbibybnr@fusiongol.com) Received: from pat.gol.co.jp ([203.216.1.191] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by smtp02.dentaku.gol.com with esmtpa (Dentaku) id 1IQEls-0008Pn-9A for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 13:03:12 +0900 Message-ID: <46D4EFFF.5080807@fusiongol.com> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 13:03:11 +0900 From: Nathan Butcher User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV GOL X-Abuse-Complaints: abuse@gol.com Subject: Re: Encrypted zfs? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 04:03:15 -0000 Yep, using GELI the providers is much better. I decided to go one step further and run GLABEL on my drives so my ZFS pool will be immune from device enumeration issues (assuming I move the drives between systems, SATA raid cards, etc.) The only thing that sucks is that once I have attached all GELI providers, I have to manually kickstart zfs and mount the pool with the following commands:- # kldload zfs # zfs volinit # zfs mount -a pool: z state: ONLINE scrub: resilver completed with 0 errors on Wed Aug 29 12:23:52 2007 config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM z ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1 ONLINE 0 0 0 label/0.eli ONLINE 0 0 0 label/1.eli ONLINE 0 0 0 label/2.eli ONLINE 0 0 0 label/3.eli ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors One thing I also tried was replacing a drive with a much larger one using zpool replace. ZFS didn't notice the larger disk capacity of the new drive and subsequently didn't increase the pool size. What is the logic behind that?