On 07/18/10 11:19 AM, marco wrote:
Im seeing weird differences between 2 raidz pools, 1 created on a recent
freebsd 9.0-CURRENT amd64 box containing the zfs v15 bits, the other on a old
osol build.
The raidz pool on the fbsd box is created from 3 2Tb sata drives.
The raidz pool on the osol box was created in the past from 3 smaller drives
but all 3 drives have been replaced by 2Tb sata drives as well (using the
autoexpand property).
The weird difference that I don't understand is that 'zfs list' on both systems
is reporting very different available space.
FreeBSD raidz pool:
% zpool status -v pool1
pool: pool1
state: ONLINE
scrub: none requested
config:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
pool1 ONLINE 0 0 0
raidz1 ONLINE 0 0 0
ada2 ONLINE 0 0 0
ada3 ONLINE 0 0 0
ada4 ONLINE 0 0 0
errors: No known data errors
Since this is a new pool it automatically has been created as a version 15 pool
% zpool get version pool1
NAME PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE
pool1 version 15 default
% zfs get version pool1
NAME PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE
pool1 version 4 -
% zpool list pool1
NAME SIZE USED AVAIL CAP HEALTH ALTROOT
pool1 5.44T 147K 5.44T 0% ONLINE -
% zfs list -r pool1
NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT
pool1 91.9K 3.56T 28.0K /pool1<-- is this behavior correct, that 1 of the 3
sata drives is then only used as a single parity disk and therefor not being added
to the actual total available space ?
Yes, that is correct. zfs list reports usable space, which is 2 out of
the three drives (parity isn't confined to one device).
now we switch to the osol built raidz pool:
% zpool status -v pool2
pool: pool2
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
pool2 ONLINE 0 0 0
raidz1 ONLINE 0 0 0
c2d1 ONLINE 0 0 0
c1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
% zpool get version pool2
NAME PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE
pool2 version 14 local
% zfs get version pool2
NAME PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE
pool2 version 1 -
% zpool list pool2
NAME SIZE USED AVAIL CAP HEALTH ALTROOT
pool2 5.46T 4.61T 870G 84% ONLINE -
% zfs list -r pool2
NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT
pool2 3.32T 2.06T 3.18T /export/pool2<-- clearly different reported AVAILABLE
space on the osol box (3.32T + 2.06T = 5.38T which seems correct taking overhead
into account so it should be a little less than what 'zpool list' is reporting as
available space.
No compression is being used on either of the raidz pools.
Are you sure? That result looks odd. It is what I'd expect to see from
a stripe, rather than a raidz.
What does "zpool iostat -v pool2" report?
--
Ian.
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
