[lustre-discuss] ZFS and OST Space Difference

Laura Hild lsh at jlab.org
Tue Apr 6 13:56:01 PDT 2021

> I am not sure about the discrepancy of 3T.  Maybe that is due to some ZFS and/or Lustre overhead?

Slop space?



Od: lustre-discuss <lustre-discuss-bounces at lists.lustre.org> v imenu Mohr, Rick via lustre-discuss <lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org>
Poslano: torek, 06. april 2021 16:34
Za: Makia Minich <makia at systemfabricworks.com>; lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org <lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org>
Zadeva: Re: [lustre-discuss] [EXTERNAL] ZFS and OST Space Difference


The drive sizes are 7.6 TB which translates to about 6.9 TiB (which is the unit that zpool uses for "T").  So the zpool sizes as just 10 x 6.9T = 69T since zpool shows the total amount of disk space available to the pool.  The usable space (which is what df is reporting) should be more like 0.8 x 69T = 55T.  I am not sure about the discrepancy of 3T.  Maybe that is due to some ZFS and/or Lustre overhead?


On 4/6/21, 3:49 PM, "lustre-discuss on behalf of Makia Minich" <lustre-discuss-bounces at lists.lustre.org on behalf of makia at systemfabricworks.com> wrote:

    I believe this was discussed a while ago, but I was unable to find clear answers, so I’ll re-ask in hopefully a slightly different way.
    On an OST, I have 30 drives, each at 7.6TB. I create 3 raidz2 zpools of 10 devices (ashift=12):

    [root at lustre47b ~]# zpool list
    oss55-0  69.9T  37.3M  69.9T        -         -     0%     0%  1.00x    ONLINE  -
    oss55-1  69.9T  37.3M  69.9T        -         -     0%     0%  1.00x    ONLINE  -
    oss55-2  69.9T  37.4M  69.9T        -         -     0%     0%  1.00x    ONLINE  -
    [root at lustre47b ~]#

    Running a mkfs.lustre against these (and the lustre mount) and I see:

    [root at lustre47b ~]# df -h | grep ost
    oss55-0/ost165             52T   27M   52T   1% /lustre/ost165
    oss55-1/ost166             52T   27M   52T   1% /lustre/ost166
    oss55-2/ost167             52T   27M   52T   1% /lustre/ost167
    [root at lustre47b ~]#

    Basically, we’re seeing a pretty dramatic loss in capacity (156TB vs 209.7TB, so a loss of about 50TB). Is there any insight on where this capacity is disappearing to? If there some mkfs.lustre or zpool option I missed in creating this? Is something just reporting slightly off and that space really is there?



    Makia Minich

    Chief Architect

    System Fabric Works
    "Fabric Computing that Works”

    "Oh, I don't know. I think everything is just as it should be, y'know?”
    - Frank Fairfield

lustre-discuss mailing list
lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss-lustre.org/attachments/20210406/128d43d8/attachment.html>

More information about the lustre-discuss mailing list