I like option #1 because it is simple and quick. It seems unlikely that this will lead to an excessive number of luns in the pool in most cases unless you start with a large number of very small luns. If you begin with 5 100GB luns and over time add 5 more it still seems like a reasonable and manageable pool with twice the original capacity.
And considering the array can likely support hundreds and perhaps thousands of luns then it really isn't an issue on the array side either. Regards, Vic On 9/12/07, Bill Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I found this discussion just today as I recently set up my first S10 machine > with ZFS. We use a NetApp Filer via multipathed FC HBAs, and I wanted to know > what my options were in regards to growing a ZFS filesystem. > > After looking at this thread, it looks like there is currently no way to grow > an existing LUN on our NetApp and then tell ZFS to expand to fill the new > space. This may be coming down the road at some point, but I would like to be > able to do this now. > > At this point, I believe I have two options: > > 1. Add a second LUN and simply do a "zpool add" to add the new space to the > existing pool. > > 2. Create a new LUN that is the size I would like my pool to be, then use > "zpool replace oldLUNdev newLUNdev" to ask ZFS to resilver my data to the new > LUN then detach the old one. > > The advantage of the first option is that it happens very quickly, but it > could get kind of messy if you grow the ZFS pool on multiple occasions. I've > read that some SANs are also limited as to how many LUNs can be created (some > are limitations of the SAN itself whereas I believe that some others impose a > limit as part of the SAN license). That would also make the first approach > less attractive. > > The advantage of the second approach is that all of the space would be > contained in a single LUN. The disadvantages are that this would involve > copying all of the data from the old LUN to the new one and also this means > that you need to have enough free space on your SAN to create this new, > larger LUN. > > Is there a best practice regarding this? I'm leaning towards option #2 so as > to keep the number of LUNs I have to manage at a minimum, but #1 seems like a > reasonable alternative, too. Or perhaps there's an option #3 that I haven't > thought of? > > Thanks, > Bill > > > This message posted from opensolaris.org > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
