> From: Ian Collins [mailto:i...@ianshome.com]
> On 10/13/12 02:12, Edward Ned Harvey
> (opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris) wrote:
> > There are at least a couple of solid reasons *in favor* of partitioning.
> >
> > #1  It seems common, at least to me, that I'll build a server with let's 
> > say, 12
> disk slots, and we'll be using 2T disks or something like that.  The OS itself
> only takes like 30G which means if I don't partition, I'm wasting 1.99T on 
> each
> of the first two disks.  As a result, when installing the OS, I always 
> partition
> rpool down to ~80G or 100G, and I will always add the second partitions of
> the first disks to the main data pool.
> How do you provision a spare in that situation?

A solid point.  I don't.

This doesn't mean you can't - it just means I don't.

If I'm not mistaken...  If you have a pool with multiple different sizes of 
devices in the pool, you only need to add a spare of the larger size.  If you 
have a smaller device failure, I believe the pool will use the larger spare 
device rather than not using a spare.  So if I'm not mistaken, you can add a 
spare to your pool exactly the same, regardless of having partitions or no 

If I'm wrong - if the pool won't use the larger spare device in place of a 
smaller failed device (partition), then you would likely need to add one spare 
for each different size device used in your pool.  In particular, this means:

Option 1:  Given that you partition your first 2 disks, 80G for OS and 1.99T 
for data, you would likely want to partition *all* your disks the same, 
including the disk that's designated as a spare.  Then you could add your spare 
80G partition as a spare device, and your spare 1.99T partition as a spare 

Option 2:  Suppose you partition your first disks, and you don't want to hassle 
on all the rest. (This is my case.)  Or you have physically different size 
devices, a pool that was originall made of 1T disks but now it's been extended 
to include a bunch of 2T disks, or something like that.  It's conceivable you 
would want to have a spare of each different size, which could in some cases 
mean you use two spares (one partitioned and one not) in a pool where you might 
otherwise have only one spare.

zfs-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to