zpool list show nonsense on raidz pools, at least it looks like it for me
Eric A. Borisch
eborisch at gmail.com
Wed Apr 12 19:30:09 UTC 2017
OK. There's a lot going on here.
A few notes:
1) Look at the output of 'zfs list -ro space data' ... this does a nice job
of showing what is actually using space.
2) Volumes with refreservation *and* snapshots take up *at least*
refreservation size + usedbysnapshots size, and frequently much more. This
is because you have a contract to allow the user to re-write (change) the
full refreservation size without running out of space, while still
retaining any data currently pointed to by a snapshot (this *is not* the
same as usedbysnapshots). If you want to 'thin provision', set
refreservation=none, but be aware of what you are doing and potential for
problems if you start actually filling up all the volumes.
You can see this all in your listing:
data/reference used 6,74T -
data/reference available 4,17T -
data/reference referenced 2,73T -
data/reference volsize 3,97T local
data/reference refreservation 3,98T local
data/reference usedbysnapshots 21,6G -
data/reference usedbydataset 2,73T -
data/reference usedbychildren 0 -
data/reference usedbyrefreservation 3,98T -
Note especially the usedbydataset and usedbyrefreservation line. I'm
guessing you have a recent snapshot, such that ZFS guarantees its existence
(and the 2.73TB it references) AS WELL AS being able to rewrite the whole
4TB volume without running out of space. All of these refreservations are
what is consuming your space available from the zfs (not zpool) perspective.
The 'available' property here is your volsize + the available size from 'zfs
list data'. (How much you could grow this volume to; its "available" size.)
3) The zpool listing (and space available) is 'ignorant' of reservations,
this is a statement of how much data is currently active (written to and
still referenced by active datasets/volumes/snapshots) on the drives, and
how much space on the drives is free to write over.
4) You can get into other overheads with different raid-z levels and pool
widths, but that's not an issue here.
Hope that helps,
More information about the freebsd-fs