willnx
Dabbler
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2013
- Messages
- 49
I never really noticed this before, but isn't this a bit odd?
vol1 is made up of 6x4TB HDDs in a raidz2, has 10GB reserved space configured, and dedupe disabled.
The only thing I can think of as to why a dataset below the volume would report a "size" that's bigger than that of the volume is because it's not showing hardware size?
But more so, a variable size that takes compression into consideration?
Or maybe a "windows share type" doesn't have as much overhead?
What are your thoughts/ ideas?

vol1 is made up of 6x4TB HDDs in a raidz2, has 10GB reserved space configured, and dedupe disabled.
The only thing I can think of as to why a dataset below the volume would report a "size" that's bigger than that of the volume is because it's not showing hardware size?
But more so, a variable size that takes compression into consideration?
I'm not really convinced with that idea; I'd image with 1.36x compression that a variable size would be greater than 1.4% bigger...
Or maybe a "windows share type" doesn't have as much overhead?
This also doesn't seem unlikely for many reasons...
What are your thoughts/ ideas?