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 -- This message posted from opensolaris.org
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
Cindy: I am not at the machine right now, but I installed from the OpenSolaris 2009.06 LiveCD and have all of the updates installed. I have solely been using "zfs list" to look at the size of the pools. from a saved file on my laptop: media at opensolarisnas:~$ zfs list NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT mediapool 3.58T 432G 29.9K /mediapool I destroyed the zpool and created another one, this time using "raidz" instead of "raidz1" in the zpool create command, and showed 0 used and 5.3T available. I am happy to have the extra TB of space, but just wanted to make sure that I had performed the create correctly each time. When I created a RAIDZ pool in VMWare Fusion and typed "raidz" instead of "raidz1" I came up with equal sized pools, but that was a virtual machine and only 2GB disks were used. David -- This message posted from opensolaris.org
David, When you get back to the original system, it would be helpful if you could provide a side-by-side comparison of the zpool create syntax and the zfs list output of both pools. Thanks, Cindy On 10/01/09 13:48, David Stewart wrote:> Cindy: > > I am not at the machine right now, but I installed from the OpenSolaris 2009.06 LiveCD and have all of the updates installed. I have solely been using "zfs list" to look at the size of the pools. > > from a saved file on my laptop: > > media at opensolarisnas:~$ zfs list > NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT > mediapool 3.58T 432G 29.9K /mediapool > > I destroyed the zpool and created another one, this time using "raidz" instead of "raidz1" in the zpool create command, and showed 0 used and 5.3T available. > > I am happy to have the extra TB of space, but just wanted to make sure that I had performed the create correctly each time. When I created a RAIDZ pool in VMWare Fusion and typed "raidz" instead of "raidz1" I came up with equal sized pools, but that was a virtual machine and only 2GB disks were used. > > David
Cindy: I believe I may have been mistaken. When I recreated the zpools, you are correct you receive different numbers for "zpool list" and "zfs list" for the sizes. I must have typed one command and then the other when creating the different pools. Thanks for the assist. Sheepish grin. David -- This message posted from opensolaris.org