I have a machine with ZFS connected to a SAN. The space of storage increased on the SAN. The order "format" shows the increase in volume well. But the size of the ZFS pool did not increase. What to make so that zfs takes into account this increase in volume? Thanks, Nathalie.
Hello Nathalie,
Monday, December 18, 2006, 2:14:29 PM, you wrote:
NPI> I have a machine with ZFS connected to a SAN. The space of storage
NPI> increased on the SAN. The order "format" shows the increase in
volume
NPI> well. But the size of the ZFS pool did not increase. What to make so
NPI> that zfs takes into account this increase in volume?
I haven''t tested it but I belive right now you have to export pool,
using format put new label on disks so format will show you disks are
actually bigger, then re-import pool (or change slice sizes if you put
zfs on slices).
There''s undergoing project to make it more automatic with ZFS.
--
Best regards,
Robert mailto:rmilkowski at task.gda.pl
http://milek.blogspot.com
Hello, After an export and an importation, the size of the pool remains unchanged. As there were no data on this partition, I destroyed and recreate the pool. The size was indeed taken into account. The correct size is indicated by the order "zpool list". The order "df - k" shows a size higher than the real size. The order "zfs list" shows a lower size. Why? # df -k data 3055288320 24 3055288244 1% /data # zpool list NAME SIZE USED AVAIL CAP HEALTH ALTROOT data 2,89T 184K 2,89T 0% EN LIGNE - # zfs list NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT data 75,5K 2,85T 24,5K /data Thanks. Nathalie.>Hello Nathalie, > >Monday, December 18, 2006, 2:14:29 PM, you wrote: > >NPI> I have a machine with ZFS connected to a SAN. The space of storage >NPI> increased on the SAN. The order "format" shows the increase in volume >NPI> well. But the size of the ZFS pool did not increase. What to make so >NPI> that zfs takes into account this increase in volume? > >I haven''t tested it but I belive right now you have to export pool, >using format put new label on disks so format will show you disks are >actually bigger, then re-import pool (or change slice sizes if you put >zfs on slices). > >There''s undergoing project to make it more automatic with ZFS. > > > >
On 19 December, 2006 - Nathalie Poulet (IPSL) sent me these 1,4K bytes:> Hello, > After an export and an importation, the size of the pool remains > unchanged. As there were no data on this partition, I destroyed and > recreate the pool. The size was indeed taken into account. > > The correct size is indicated by the order "zpool list". The order "df > - k" shows a size higher than the real size. The order "zfs list" shows > a lower size. Why? > > # df -k > > data 3055288320 24 3055288244 1% /data% echo 3055288320/1024/1024/1024 | bc -lq 2.84545898437500000000 Seems about the same.> # zpool list > > NAME SIZE USED AVAIL CAP HEALTH ALTROOT > > data 2,89T 184K 2,89T 0% EN LIGNE - > > # zfs list > > NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT > > data 75,5K 2,85T 24,5K /data/Tomas -- Tomas ?gren, stric at acc.umu.se, http://www.acc.umu.se/~stric/ |- Student at Computing Science, University of Ume? `- Sysadmin at {cs,acc}.umu.se
Nathalie Poulet (IPSL) wrote:> Hello, > After an export and an importation, the size of the pool remains > unchanged. As there were no data on this partition, I destroyed and > recreate the pool. The size was indeed taken into account. > > The correct size is indicated by the order "zpool list". The order "df > - k" shows a size higher than the real size. The order "zfs list" shows > a lower size. Why?As Tomas pointed out, "zfs list" and "df -k" show the same size. "zpool list" shows slightly more, because it does its accounting differently, taking into account only actual blocks allocated, whereas the others show usable space, taking into account the small amount of space we reserve for allocation efficiency (as well as quotas or reservations, if you have them). The fact that ''zpool list'' shows the raw values is bug 6308817 "discrepancy between zfs and zpool space accounting". --matt