Hi David,
Which Solaris release is this?
Are you sure you are using the same ZFS command to review the sizes
of the raidz1 and raidz pools? The zpool list and zfs list commands
will display different values.
See the output below of my tank pool created with raidz or raidz1
redundancy. The pool sizes that are created identical on Nevada build
124.
Cindy
# zpool create tank raidz c0t5d0 c0t6d0 c0t7d0
# zpool list tank
NAME SIZE USED AVAIL CAP HEALTH ALTROOT
tank 408G 144K 408G 0% ONLINE -
# zpool destroy tank
# zpool create tank raidz1 c0t5d0 c0t6d0 c0t7d0
# zpool list tank
NAME SIZE USED AVAIL CAP HEALTH ALTROOT
tank 408G 144K 408G 0% ONLINE -
# cat /etc/release
Solaris Express Community Edition snv_124 SPARC
Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Use is subject to license terms.
Assembled 21 September 2009
On 10/01/09 11:54, David Stewart wrote:
So, I took four 1.5TB drives and made RAIDZ, RAIDZ1 and RAIDZ2 pools. The sizes for the pools were 5.3TB,
4.0TB, and 2.67TB respectively. The man page for RAIDZ states that "The raidz vdev type is an alias for
raidz1." So why was there a difference between the sizes for RAIDZ and RAIDZ1? Shouldn't the size be
the same for "zpool create raidz ..." and "zpool create raidz1 ..." if I am using the
exact same drives?
David
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
