From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 29 10:10:38 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 DED9C16A418 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 10:10:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (tim.des.no [194.63.250.121]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0F2813C457 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 10:10:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spam.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 204972095; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:10:34 +0200 (CEST) X-Spam-Tests: AWL X-Spam-Learn: disabled X-Spam-Score: 0.0/3.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.1 (2007-05-02) on tim.des.no Received: from ds4.des.no (des.no [80.203.243.180]) by smtp.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CA142094; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:10:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: by ds4.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001) id DF60D84464; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:10:33 +0200 (CEST) From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= To: Nathan Butcher References: <46D4EFFF.5080807@fusiongol.com> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:10:33 +0200 In-Reply-To: <46D4EFFF.5080807@fusiongol.com> (Nathan Butcher's message of "Wed\, 29 Aug 2007 13\:03\:11 +0900") Message-ID: <86ir6y3b3a.fsf@ds4.des.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/22.1 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org 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 10:10:39 -0000 Nathan Butcher writes: > 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:- That shouldn't be necessary; geli starts before zfs in the rc order. > 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? How do you expect ZFS to provide redundancy for the larger disk? Your pool will grow when all disks are replaced with larger ones. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no