Drives appearing to be 1/2 as big?

[DrewS]

I have a simple freenas build with 2 3TB drives and 1 2TB drive, the 2 3TB drives are combined into 1 6TB filesystem, in freenas Storage, the 6Tb appears as 3.4TB size, and the 2TB as 1.1TB drive. Under the view disks tab I see the 2 3TB drives as they should 3TB and the 2TB as a 2TB drive

FreeNAS 9.2.1.9, Asus z77-a MB, Intel Celeron CPU G1620, 16GB RAM.

 

[danb35]

Post a screenshot of your storage screen, and your volume status screen.

 

[danb35]

Now I see there are screenshots there--did you edit the post to include them? In any event, back on the storage screen, can you click on the triangles to expand those two volumes?

 

[DrewS]

 

[anodos]

The screenshot shows a 5.3TiB zpool and a 1.2TiB zpool. I think with overhead and TB -> TiB conversion this looks right.

By the way, striping disks like that makes it so that ZFS can't fix data errors / corruption.

 

[danb35]

What you're seeing is normal, though a bit confusing. This display was improved a bit in 9.3, but that introduced some other quirks that result in other confusing information on this screen. The basic issue is that ZFS treats each dataset, for many purposes, as its own filesystem. Thus, MassiveStorage and MassiveStorage/Massive are separate. MassiveStorage/Massive has 1.9 TiB used, but MassiveStorage only has 280 KiB used. The Size column is calculated by FreeNAS by adding Used and Available--you'll note that MassiveStorage/Massive lists a size of 5.3 TiB, which is about what's expected for 6 TB of drives.

And, as @anodos noted (and hopefully you're already aware), neither of your pools have any redundancy, so there's no protection against drive failure or data corruption. If one of the two disks in MassiveStorage fails, you'll lose all the data on that pool/volume.

 

[DrewS]

Honestly Mass storage I don't care about, I can always re-rip and upload all my media and remake all the jails, I do need redundancy for the backups which I do care about. I ordered another drive for that so Ill have redundancy there soon.

Ok so I was just reading it wrong, naturally thought I was reading terabytes not tebibytes, makes sense now. Thanks.