I am currently learning about ZFS RAIDz. I am using four 1GB thumb drives plugged in to a USB hub that is then plugged into a notebook running FreeBSD 10.2 (amd64). While the thumbdrives won't win any performance races, they do allow me easily to learn and understand the zpool and zfs commands, and mess with degraded arrays and stuff without having to dig around inside a PC chassis.
I've got four thumbdrives plugged in, da0 through da3, inclusive.
I then issue the following commands:
My question is: why does
Thanks.
I've got four thumbdrives plugged in, da0 through da3, inclusive.
I then issue the following commands:
zpool create argosy raidz da0 da1 da2 da3
zfs create argosy/cargo
zfs set mountpoint=/raid argosy/cargo
zfs set atime=off argosy
zpool status
shows:
Code:
pool: argosy
state: ONLINE
scan: scrub repaired 0 in 0h0m with 0 errors on Sun Sep 20 22:06:39 2015
config:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
argosy ONLINE 0 0 0
raidz1-0 ONLINE 0 0 0
diskid/DISK-AA40000000003941 ONLINE 0 0 0
diskid/DISK-AA40000000003835 ONLINE 0 0 0
diskid/DISK-AA40000000003840 ONLINE 0 0 0
diskid/DISK-AA40000000003903 ONLINE 0 0 0
errors: No known data errors
zpool list
shows
Code:
NAME SIZE ALLOC FREE EXPANDSZ FRAG CAP DEDUP HEALTH ALTROOT
argosy 3.75G 266K 3.75G - 0% 0% 1.00x ONLINE -
df -h
shows
Code:
argosy 2.7G 26K 2.7G 0% /argosy
argosy/cargo 2.7G 26K 2.7G 0% /raid
My question is: why does
df -h
show 2.7G as the size of the pool, while zpool list
shows 3.75G? The RAIDz is at the zpool level, so shouldn't zpool list
reflect that there is space used by parity but not available for mere users?Thanks.
Last edited by a moderator: