A percentage of the total space is reserved for pool
overhead and is not
allocatable, but shows up as available in zpool
list.
Something to change/show in the future?
--
Leal
[http://www.posix.brte.com.br/blog]
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
Ben Rockwood wrote:
I've been struggling to fully understand why disk space seems to vanish.
I've dug through bits of code and reviewed all the mails on the subject that
I can find, but I still don't have a proper understanding of whats going on.
I did a test with a local zpool on
I guess difficult questions go unanswered :(
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Sun, 2 Nov 2008, Turanga Leela wrote:
I guess difficult questions go unanswered :(
Mailing lists are not an efficient substitute for reading the
documentation, blogs, wikis, and existing mailing list postings.
Your question is a FAQ. Google is your friend.
Bob
Are you running this on a live pool? If so, zdb can't get a reliable
block count -- and zdb -L [live pool] emits a warning to that effect.
Jeff
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 03:36:25AM -0700, Ben Rockwood wrote:
I've been struggling to fully understand why disk space seems to vanish.
I've dug
No takers? :)
benr.
I'm quite curious about finding out about this too, to be honest :)
And its not just ZFS on Solaris because I've filled up and imported pools into
ZFS Fuse 0.5.0 (which is based on the latest ZFS code) in Linux, and on FreeBSD
too.
--
This message posted from
No takers? :)
benr.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Hello there...
I did see that already, talk with some guys without answer too... ;-)
Actually, this week i did not see discrepancy between tools, but the pool
information was wrong (space used). Exporting/importing, scrub, and etc, did
not solve. I know that zfs is async in the status report
