为什么“zfs list”和“zpool list”报告的我的 raidz2 池的大小差异很大?

为什么“zfs list”和“zpool list”报告的我的 raidz2 池的大小差异很大?

我有一台带有 8 个 zpools 的 ZFS 服务器。每个池都是 12 个 6TB 磁盘,采用 10+2 RAIDZ 配置。因此,每个池的原始存储空间为 12*6=72 TB,可用空间为 10*6=60 TB。但是,当我使用 查询时,我看到的结果zfs list与使用查询时不同zpool list,如下所示:

# zfs list
NAME     USED  AVAIL  REFER  MOUNTPOINT
intp1    631K  48.0T   219K  /intp1
intp2    631K  48.0T   219K  /intp2
intp3    631K  48.0T   219K  /intp3
jbodp4   631K  48.0T   219K  /jbodp4

# zpool list
NAME     SIZE  ALLOC   FREE  EXPANDSZ   FRAG    CAP  DEDUP  HEALTH  ALTROOT
intp1     65T  1.02M  65.0T         -     0%     0%  1.00x  ONLINE  -
intp2     65T  1020K  65.0T         -     0%     0%  1.00x  ONLINE  -
intp3     65T  1.02M  65.0T         -     0%     0%  1.00x  ONLINE  -
jbodp4    65T  1.02M  65.0T         -     0%     0%  1.00x  ONLINE  -

有人能帮助我理解为什么会有这种差异吗?

答案1

我很惊讶你有这么大的设置。你建了这个数组吗?由于池设计,这可能是一个糟糕的性能安排。

无论如何,zpool手册页对此进行了解释。zfs list将显示您的可用空间。zpool列表显示奇偶校验空间作为存储空间。

   used                Amount of storage space used within the pool.

   The  space  usage properties report actual physical space available to the storage pool. The physical
   space can be different from the total amount of space that any contained datasets can  actually  use.
   The  amount  of  space used in a raidz configuration depends on the characteristics of the data being
   written. In addition, ZFS reserves some space for internal accounting that the zfs(8)  command  takes
   into  account, but the zpool command does not. For non-full pools of a reasonable size, these effects
   should be invisible. For small pools, or pools that are close to being completely  full,  these  dis-
   crepancies may become more noticeable.

相关内容