Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs question as to sizes

2007-04-17 Thread Wade . Stuart
Eric Schrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 04/16/2007 05:29:05 PM: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 05:13:37PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > Why it was considered a valid data column in its current state is > > anyone's guess. > > > > This column is precise and valid. It represents the am

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs question as to sizes

2007-04-16 Thread Eric Schrock
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 05:13:37PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Why it was considered a valid data column in its current state is > anyone's guess. > This column is precise and valid. It represents the amount of space uniquely referenced by the snapshot, and therefore the amount of space

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs question as to sizes

2007-04-16 Thread Wade . Stuart
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/16/2007 04:57:43 PM: > one pool is mirror on 300gb dirives and the other is raidz1 on 7 x > 143gb drives. > > I did make clone of my zfs file systems with their snaps and something is not > right, sizes do not match... anyway here is what I have: > > [17:50:32] [

[zfs-discuss] zfs question as to sizes

2007-04-16 Thread Krzys
ok, here is what I have: [17:53:35] [EMAIL PROTECTED]: /root > zpool status -v pool: mypool state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM mypool ONLINE 0 0 0 mirrorONLINE 0 0 0 c1t