On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 09:25:43PM -0400, Michael Butler wrote:
On 2019-04-08 20:55, Alexander Motin wrote:
On 08.04.2019 20:21, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
09.04.2019 7:00, Kevin P. Neal wrote:
My guess (given that only ada1 is reporting a blocksize mismatch) is that
your disks reported a 512B
On 2019-04-08 20:55, Alexander Motin wrote:
> On 08.04.2019 20:21, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
>> 09.04.2019 7:00, Kevin P. Neal wrote:
>>
My guess (given that only ada1 is reporting a blocksize mismatch) is that
your disks reported a 512B native blocksize. In the absence of any
On 08.04.2019 20:21, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> 09.04.2019 7:00, Kevin P. Neal wrote:
>
>>> My guess (given that only ada1 is reporting a blocksize mismatch) is that
>>> your disks reported a 512B native blocksize. In the absence of any
>>> override,
>>> ZFS will then build an ashift=9 pool.
>
>
09.04.2019 7:00, Kevin P. Neal wrote:
>> My guess (given that only ada1 is reporting a blocksize mismatch) is that
>> your disks reported a 512B native blocksize. In the absence of any override,
>> ZFS will then build an ashift=9 pool.
[skip]
> smartctl 7.0 2018-12-30 r4883 [FreeBSD
On 2019-Apr-07 16:36:40 +0100, tech-lists wrote:
>storage ONLINE 0 0 0
> raidz1-0 ONLINE 0 0 0
>replacing-0 ONLINE 0 0 1.65K
> ada2 ONLINE 0 0 0
> ada1 ONLINE 0 0 0 block size: 512B
Hello,
I have this in sysctl.conf on a desktop machine (12-stable):
vfs.zfs.min_auto_ashift=12
this has not always been there. I guess the zpool pre-dates it. I only
noticed it because have recently had to replace a disk in its zfs array
when I saw this:
% zpool status
pool: storage
state:
