On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Gregg Wonderly <gregg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/19/2011 8:51 PM, Frank Cusack wrote: > > If you don't detach the smaller drive, the pool size won't increase. Even > if the remaining smaller drive fails, that doesn't mean you have to detach > it. So yes, the pool size might increase, but it won't be "unexpectedly". > It will be because you detached all smaller drives. Also, even if a > smaller drive is failed, it can still be attached. > > If you don't have a controller slot to connect the replacement drive > through, then you have to remove the smaller drive, physically. > Physically, yes. By detach, I meant 'zfs detach', a logical operation. You can, then attach the replacement drive, but will "replace" work then, > or must you remove and then add it because it is "the same disk"? > I was thinking that you leave the failed drive [logically] attached. So, you don't 'zfs replace', you just 'zfs attach' your new drive. Yes, this leaves the mirror in faulted condition. You'd correct that later when you get a replacement smaller drive. But, as Fajar noted, just make sure autoexpand is off and you can still do a 'zfs replace' operation if you like (perhaps so your monitoring shuts up) and the pool size will not unexpectedly grow.
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
