On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 06:50 -0700, Glen Gunselman wrote:
> There was a time when manufacturers know about base-2 but those days
> are long gone.
Oh, they know all about base-2; it's just that disks seem bigger when
you use base-10 units.
Measure a disk's size in 10^(3n)-based KB/MB/GB/TB units,
Glen Gunselman wrote:
Here is the output from my J4500 with 48 x 1 TB
disks. It is almost the
exact same configuration as
yours. This is used for Netbackup. As Mario just
pointed out, "zpool
list" includes the parity drive
in the space calculation whereas "zfs list" doesn't.
[r...@xxx /]#>
On 29.07.09 16:59, Mark J Musante wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Glen Gunselman wrote:
# zpool list
NAME SIZE USED AVAILCAP HEALTH ALTROOT
zpool1 40.8T 176K 40.8T 0% ONLINE -
# zfs list
NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT
zpool1 364K 32.1T 28.
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Glen Gunselman wrote:
Where would I see CR 6308817 my usual search tools aren't find it.
http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6308817
Regards,
markm
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> This is normal, and admittedly somewhat confusing
> (see CR 6308817). Even
> if you had not created the additional zfs datasets,
> it still would have
> listed 40T and 32T.
>
Mark,
Thanks for the examples.
Where would I see CR 6308817 my usual search tools aren't find it.
Glen
--
This
> Here is the output from my J4500 with 48 x 1 TB
> disks. It is almost the
> exact same configuration as
> yours. This is used for Netbackup. As Mario just
> pointed out, "zpool
> list" includes the parity drive
> in the space calculation whereas "zfs list" doesn't.
>
> [r...@xxx /]#> zpool sta
> IIRC zpool list includes the parity drives in the disk space calculation
and zfs list doesn't.
> Terabyte drives are more likely 900-something GB drives thanks to that
base-2 vs. base-10 confusion HD manufacturers introduced. Using that
900GB figure I get to both 40TB and 32TB for with and witho
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Glen Gunselman wrote:
# zpool list
NAME SIZE USED AVAILCAP HEALTH ALTROOT
zpool1 40.8T 176K 40.8T 0% ONLINE -
# zfs list
NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT
zpool1 364K 32.1T 28.8K /zpool1
This is normal, and admitted
Glen Gunselman wrote:
This is my first ZFS pool. I'm using an X4500 with 48 TB drives. Solaris is
5/09.
After the create zfs list shows 40.8T but after creating 4
filesystems/mountpoints the available drops 8.8TB to 32.1TB. What happened to
the 8.8TB. Is this much overhead normal?
zpool
This is my first ZFS pool. I'm using an X4500 with 48 TB drives. Solaris is
5/09.
After the create zfs list shows 40.8T but after creating 4
filesystems/mountpoints the available drops 8.8TB to 32.1TB. What happened to
the 8.8TB. Is this much overhead normal?
IIRC zpool list includes the p
This is my first ZFS pool. I'm using an X4500 with 48 TB drives. Solaris is
5/09.
After the create zfs list shows 40.8T but after creating 4
filesystems/mountpoints the available drops 8.8TB to 32.1TB. What happened to
the 8.8TB. Is this much overhead normal?
zpool create -f zpool1 raidz c1
11 matches
Mail list logo
