On Mon, 2010-03-15 at 15:40 -0700, Carson Gaspar wrote: > Tonmaus wrote: > > > I am lacking 1 TB on my pool: > > > > u...@filemeister:~$ zpool list daten NAME SIZE ALLOC FREE > > CAP DEDUP HEALTH ALTROOT daten 10T 3,71T 6,29T 37% 1.00x > > ONLINE - u...@filemeister:~$ zpool status daten pool: daten state: > > ONLINE scrub: none requested config: > > > > NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM daten ONLINE 0 > > 0 0 raidz2-0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c10t2d0 ONLINE > > 0 0 0 c10t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c10t4d0 ONLINE > > 0 0 0 c10t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c10t6d0 ONLINE > > 0 0 0 c10t7d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c10t8d0 ONLINE > > 0 0 0 c10t9d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c11t18d0 ONLINE > > 0 0 0 c11t19d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c11t20d0 ONLINE > > 0 0 0 spares c11t21d0 AVAIL > > > > errors: No known data errors u...@filemeister:~$ zfs list daten NAME > > USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT daten 3,01T 4,98T 110M /daten > > > > I am counting 11 disks 1 TB each in a raidz2 pool. This is 11 TB > > gross capacity, and 9 TB net. Zpool is however stating 10 TB and zfs > > is stating 8TB. The difference between net and gross is correct, but > > where is the capacity from the 11th disk going? > > My guess is unit conversion and rounding. Your pool has 11 base 10 TB, > which is 10.2445 base 2 TiB. > > Likewise your fs has 9 base 10 TB, which is 8.3819 base 2 TiB.
Not quite. 11 x 10^12 =~ 10.004 x (1024^4). So, the 'zpool list' is right on, at "10T" available. For the 'zfs list', remember there is a slight overhead for filesystem formatting. So, instead of 9 x 10^12 =~ 8.185 x (1024^4) it shows 7.99TB usable. The roughly 200GB is the overhead. (or, about 3%). -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800) _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
