I don't think so. On an OpenIndiana server I run, it shows almost a
full 1TB difference:
shawn@indianapolis:~$ zpool list tank
NAME SIZE ALLOC FREE CAP DEDUP HEALTH ALTROOT
tank 4.06T 1.62T 2.44T 39% 1.00x ONLINE -
shawn@indianapolis:~$ zfs list tank
NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT
tank 1.08T 1.58T 45.3K /tank
shawn@indianapolis:~$ zpool iostat tank
capacity operations bandwidth
pool alloc free read write read write
---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
tank 1.62T 2.44T 4 22 473K 165K
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Christer Solskogen
<christer.solsko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Shawn Webb <latt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The `zpool` command does not show all the overhead from ZFS. The `zfs`
>> command does. That's why the `zfs` command shows less available space
>> than the `zpool` command.
>>
>
> A overhead of almost 300GB? That seems a bit to much, don't you think?
> The pool consist of one vdev with two 1,5TB disks and one 3TB in raidz1.
>
> --
> chs,
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
