I see now that a detail in my first post was incorrect, one of the disks is a
1.5 TB-disk, so the pool is thus 4 x 1.5 TB. So zpool reports total space
including parity. It makes sense then!
Thanks!
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-
On 06/06/11 08:07, Cyril Plisko wrote:
zpool reports space usage on disks, without taking into account RAIDZ overhead.
zfs reports net capacity available, after RAIDZ overhead accounted for.
Yup. Going back to the original numbers:
nebol@filez:/$ zfs list tank2
NAMEUSED AVAIL REFER MOU
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Johan Eliasson
wrote:
> I recently created a raidz of four 2TB-disks and moved a bunch of movies onto
> them.
> And then I noticed that I've somehow lost a full TB of space. Why?
zpool reports space usage on disks, without taking into account RAIDZ overhead.
zfs r
Thanks. That makes sense. This is raidz2.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Hi Charles,
What kind of pool is this?
The SIZE and AVAIL amounts will vary depending on the ZFS redundancy and
whether the deflated or inflated amounts are displayed.
I attempted to explain the differences in the zpool list/zfs list
display, here:
http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Communi
one shows pool size, one shows filesystem size.
the pool size is based on raw space.
the zfs list size shows how much is used and how much usable space is
ableable.
for instance, i use raidz2 with 1tb drives so if i do zpool list i see ALL
the space, including parity, but if i do zfs list i onl
Jure Pečar wrote:
> Maybe a basic zfs question ...
>
> I have a pool:
>
> # zpool status backup
> pool: backup
> state: ONLINE
> scrub: none requested
> config:
>
> NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
> backupONLINE 0 0 0
> mirror ONLINE
