Of course I meant 'zpool *' not 'zfs *' below. On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Frank Cusack <fr...@linetwo.net> wrote:
> 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 zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
