I've been reading through the forums a fair bit before making the leap from 0.7 to 8.3.0, so I understand the cautions about ZFS. I have also seen some folks using less than the recommended specs with apparent success, so please bear with me.
I have a P4 3GHz system with 3GB of RAM. It was running 0.6 and then 0.7 with a WD 1TB drive formatted UFS just fine for the past couple years. For XMas I received 2x Seagate 1TB drives. I decided to upgrade to 8.3.0 and try a ZFS Mirror since it's essentially just me accessing the server at this point, and only for basic file storage and the occasional iTunes streaming.
Initial setup went lickety-split and the ZFS mirror, which I named "storage" showed up just fine with 908GB available. I then started creating ZFS Datasets to replicate my previous layout, each one under "storage": "home", "iTunes", "iso" and some others. I configured CIFS/Samba sharing and shared out those datasets and mapped to them from my Win 7 x64 box. Everything showed up just fine, and each "drive" showed a total of 908GB available (which I am used to seeing).
I then connected my old 1TB drive, imported it into the server as "oldstorage", dropped to the shell and copied by files from it to the new mirror. Everything seemed to be ok. Remembering that copying can fail, and re-copying is a pain, I refreshed myself with rsync, and rsync'd a folder over. Still good. So, I went whole-hog and rsync'd the contents of the old drive to the new mirror.
After almost 24 hours (sigh), it was done. Yay!
But now FreeNAS is reporting that each dataset has a different total size, but they all have 55GB free. Windows Explorer shows the same. For example, my home drive/dataset shows that it is a 469GB drive, with 55GB free. My iso drive/dataset says it is a 64GB drive with 55GB free. I tried creating a new dataset, but it, too, reported the odd sizes. I did not specify any quotas on any of the datasets.
A few file tests seem to show that the data is ok, but I am wondering if this is a normal behaviour? (My initial testing in a VirtualBox did not exhibit this, but I was testing on a 64-bit system) Not seeing any errors in the logs. Only error was something from django that flashed by during boot-up, complaining about some field being NULL.
Since I still have the old drive, I can wipe the new setup and try again. Worst-case scenario, I'll revert back to UFS. Just wondering if anyone has seen this happen before?
Thanks!
Dion
I have a P4 3GHz system with 3GB of RAM. It was running 0.6 and then 0.7 with a WD 1TB drive formatted UFS just fine for the past couple years. For XMas I received 2x Seagate 1TB drives. I decided to upgrade to 8.3.0 and try a ZFS Mirror since it's essentially just me accessing the server at this point, and only for basic file storage and the occasional iTunes streaming.
Initial setup went lickety-split and the ZFS mirror, which I named "storage" showed up just fine with 908GB available. I then started creating ZFS Datasets to replicate my previous layout, each one under "storage": "home", "iTunes", "iso" and some others. I configured CIFS/Samba sharing and shared out those datasets and mapped to them from my Win 7 x64 box. Everything showed up just fine, and each "drive" showed a total of 908GB available (which I am used to seeing).
I then connected my old 1TB drive, imported it into the server as "oldstorage", dropped to the shell and copied by files from it to the new mirror. Everything seemed to be ok. Remembering that copying can fail, and re-copying is a pain, I refreshed myself with rsync, and rsync'd a folder over. Still good. So, I went whole-hog and rsync'd the contents of the old drive to the new mirror.
After almost 24 hours (sigh), it was done. Yay!
But now FreeNAS is reporting that each dataset has a different total size, but they all have 55GB free. Windows Explorer shows the same. For example, my home drive/dataset shows that it is a 469GB drive, with 55GB free. My iso drive/dataset says it is a 64GB drive with 55GB free. I tried creating a new dataset, but it, too, reported the odd sizes. I did not specify any quotas on any of the datasets.
A few file tests seem to show that the data is ok, but I am wondering if this is a normal behaviour? (My initial testing in a VirtualBox did not exhibit this, but I was testing on a 64-bit system) Not seeing any errors in the logs. Only error was something from django that flashed by during boot-up, complaining about some field being NULL.
Since I still have the old drive, I can wipe the new setup and try again. Worst-case scenario, I'll revert back to UFS. Just wondering if anyone has seen this happen before?
Thanks!
Dion