On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Tom Evans <tevans...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Freddie Cash <fjwc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Tom Evans <tevans...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > > > >> When looking at the size of a pool, this information can be got from > >> both zpool list and zfs list: > >> > >> > $ zfs list > >> NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT > >> tank 5.69T 982G 36.5K /tank > >> > >> > $ zpool list > >> NAME SIZE USED AVAIL CAP HEALTH ALTROOT > >> tank 8.14T 6.86T 1.28T 84% ONLINE - > >> > >> Why the different sizes? > >> The pool is a raidz of 6 x 1.5 TB drives. > >> > > > > zpool lists the raw storage available to the pool. Every single bit of > > every single drive is listed here. This will be 6 x 1 TB. > > > > zfs lists only the amount of storage available to be used, after all > > redundancy is taken into account. This will be 5 x 1 TB. > > Ah, that makes sense - also explains why the df output matches up > precisely with the zfs list output. > Things get really interesting once you enable compression on a filesystem, as then du, df, and zfs list will all be different. :) There's a great post on the zfs-discuss mailing list that covers this. I'll see if I can dig it up. -- Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ 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"
