> I am not sure about the discrepancy of 3T.  Maybe that is due to some ZFS 
> and/or Lustre overhead?

Slop space?

   
https://openzfs.github.io/openzfs-docs/Performance%20and%20Tuning/Module%20Parameters.html#spa-slop-shift

-Laura


________________________________
Od: lustre-discuss <[email protected]> v imenu Mohr, Rick 
via lustre-discuss <[email protected]>
Poslano: torek, 06. april 2021 16:34
Za: Makia Minich <[email protected]>; [email protected] 
<[email protected]>
Zadeva: Re: [lustre-discuss] [EXTERNAL] ZFS and OST Space Difference

Makia,

The drive sizes are 7.6 TB which translates to about 6.9 TiB (which is the unit 
that zpool uses for "T").  So the zpool sizes as just 10 x 6.9T = 69T since 
zpool shows the total amount of disk space available to the pool.  The usable 
space (which is what df is reporting) should be more like 0.8 x 69T = 55T.  I 
am not sure about the discrepancy of 3T.  Maybe that is due to some ZFS and/or 
Lustre overhead?

--Rick

On 4/6/21, 3:49 PM, "lustre-discuss on behalf of Makia Minich" 
<[email protected] on behalf of 
[email protected]> wrote:

    I believe this was discussed a while ago, but I was unable to find clear 
answers, so I’ll re-ask in hopefully a slightly different way.
    On an OST, I have 30 drives, each at 7.6TB. I create 3 raidz2 zpools of 10 
devices (ashift=12):

    [root@lustre47b ~]# zpool list
    NAME            SIZE  ALLOC   FREE  CKPOINT  EXPANDSZ   FRAG    CAP  DEDUP  
  HEALTH  ALTROOT
    oss55-0  69.9T  37.3M  69.9T        -         -     0%     0%  1.00x    
ONLINE  -
    oss55-1  69.9T  37.3M  69.9T        -         -     0%     0%  1.00x    
ONLINE  -
    oss55-2  69.9T  37.4M  69.9T        -         -     0%     0%  1.00x    
ONLINE  -
    [root@lustre47b ~]#


    Running a mkfs.lustre against these (and the lustre mount) and I see:

    [root@lustre47b ~]# df -h | grep ost
    oss55-0/ost165             52T   27M   52T   1% /lustre/ost165
    oss55-1/ost166             52T   27M   52T   1% /lustre/ost166
    oss55-2/ost167             52T   27M   52T   1% /lustre/ost167
    [root@lustre47b ~]#


    Basically, we’re seeing a pretty dramatic loss in capacity (156TB vs 
209.7TB, so a loss of about 50TB). Is there any insight on where this capacity 
is disappearing to? If there some mkfs.lustre or zpool option I missed in 
creating this? Is something just reporting slightly off and that space really 
is there?

    Thanks.

    —


    Makia Minich

    Chief Architect

    System Fabric Works
    "Fabric Computing that Works”

    "Oh, I don't know. I think everything is just as it should be, y'know?”
    - Frank Fairfield







_______________________________________________
lustre-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.lustre.org_listinfo.cgi_lustre-2Ddiscuss-2Dlustre.org&d=DwIGaQ&c=CJqEzB1piLOyyvZjb8YUQw&r=897kjkV-MEeU1IVizIfc5Q&m=habzcIRCKUXYLTbJVvgv2fPgmEuBnVtUdsgTfIsAHZY&s=M7RWFzL5Xm7uDovhMY_cI9Hvk-jWavZyfLWjpMSAs1E&e=
_______________________________________________
lustre-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org

Reply via email to