Aggregate physical used less than volume physical used

[DONBARTON1]

Hello All,

I think I have just been looking at this too long and it is an easy answer, but I have an aggregate that has 5954GB physical used and a volume in that aggregate that has 7903GB physical used. How is the physical volume larger than the aggregate?

 I have looked at all the efficiencies and they add up independently, I just can't make the math above work.  If anyone can point me in the right direction to see how this is possible I would be very grateful.

I can provide more output if needed.

Thanks!

[akiendl]

Pretty sure you have set thin provisioning on the volume.

Thin provisioning

This allows you to make the volume larger than the aggregate is physically.

ak.

[DONBARTON1]

Thank you for your reply.  Perhaps that is it.  What is throwing me off is this.  If it was thin-provisioning the total volume used (7720GB) would still show in the aggr used, correct?

What I do see now is the volume efficiencies are saving me 2.08 TB and the effective total footprint is 5.77TB

I guess what I am seeing in the aggr used (5860GB) is the total footprint volume including efficiencies?

Follow up: Is this where we would really have to pay attention to volume efficiencies?  Aggr shows that I have 2.56TB available but I can only find out why if I look at the volume show-footprint.

Aggr Size: 8420GB

Aggr Used: 5860GB

volume size: 8396GB

vol used:        7720GB

Footprint Data Reduction: 2.08TB <--volume show-footprint command

Effective Total Footprint: 5.77TB <---volume show-footprint command