On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Gregg Wonderly <gregg...@gmail.com> wrote:

>  On 12/19/2011 8:51 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
> If you don't detach the smaller drive, the pool size won't increase.  Even
> if the remaining smaller drive fails, that doesn't mean you have to detach
> it.  So yes, the pool size might increase, but it won't be "unexpectedly".
> It will be because you detached all smaller drives.  Also, even if a
> smaller drive is failed, it can still be attached.
> If you don't have a controller slot to connect the replacement drive
> through, then you have to remove the smaller drive, physically.

Physically, yes.  By detach, I meant 'zfs detach', a logical operation.

  You can, then attach the replacement drive, but will "replace" work then,
> or must you remove and then add it because it is "the same disk"?

I was thinking that you leave the failed drive [logically] attached.  So,
you don't 'zfs replace', you just 'zfs attach' your new drive.  Yes, this
leaves the mirror in faulted condition.  You'd correct that later when you
get a replacement smaller drive.

But, as Fajar noted, just make sure autoexpand is off and you can still do
a 'zfs replace' operation if you like (perhaps so your monitoring shuts up)
and the pool size will not unexpectedly grow.
zfs-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to