ZFS / zpool size

[Shawn Webb]

I don't think so. On an OpenIndiana server I run, it shows almost a
full 1TB difference:

shawn at indianapolis:~$ zpool list tank
NAME   SIZE  ALLOC   FREE    CAP  DEDUP  HEALTH  ALTROOT
tank  4.06T  1.62T  2.44T    39%  1.00x  ONLINE  -
shawn at indianapolis:~$ zfs list tank
NAME   USED  AVAIL  REFER  MOUNTPOINT
tank  1.08T  1.58T  45.3K  /tank
shawn at indianapolis:~$ zpool iostat tank
               capacity     operations    bandwidth
pool        alloc   free   read  write   read  write
----------  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----
tank        1.62T  2.44T      4     22   473K   165K

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Christer Solskogen
<christer.solskogen at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Shawn Webb <lattera at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The `zpool` command does not show all the overhead from ZFS. The `zfs`
>> command does. That's why the `zfs` command shows less available space
>> than the `zpool` command.
>>
>
> A overhead of almost 300GB? That seems a bit to much, don't you think?
> The pool consist of one vdev with two 1,5TB disks and one 3TB in raidz1.
>
> --
> chs,