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