zvol on RAIDZ2 takes up double the expected space

[Lalufu]

Test setup:

Fedora 19, zfs 0.6.2 release, 6 disks in RAIDZ2 with SSD as L2ARC device.
This setup will incur a 50% overhead in pool allocation (4 data disks, 2 checksum)

Allocated pool space before experiment:
8996065210368

Create a 10G zvol:
zfs create -V 10G -o compression=off tank/backup/test

Fully write the volume once:
dd_rescue -Z 0 /dev/zvol/tank/backup/test

Allocated pool space after write:
9028783779840

As can be seen the difference is 32718569472 bytes (~30GB), double the expected amount of ~15GB.

"zfs get all" output of the zvol after writing:

NAME              PROPERTY              VALUE                  SOURCE
tank/backup/test  type                  volume                 -
tank/backup/test  creation              Tue Oct 22 23:12 2013  -
tank/backup/test  used                  20.3G                  -
tank/backup/test  available             4.88T                  -
tank/backup/test  referenced            20.3G                  -
tank/backup/test  compressratio         1.00x                  -
tank/backup/test  reservation           none                   default
tank/backup/test  volsize               10G                    local
tank/backup/test  volblocksize          8K                     -
tank/backup/test  checksum              on                     default
tank/backup/test  compression           off                    local
tank/backup/test  readonly              off                    default
tank/backup/test  copies                1                      default
tank/backup/test  refreservation        10.3G                  local
tank/backup/test  primarycache          all                    default
tank/backup/test  secondarycache        metadata               inherited from tank/backup
tank/backup/test  usedbysnapshots       0                      -
tank/backup/test  usedbydataset         20.3G                  -
tank/backup/test  usedbychildren        0                      -
tank/backup/test  usedbyrefreservation  0                      -
tank/backup/test  logbias               latency                default
tank/backup/test  dedup                 off                    default
tank/backup/test  mlslabel              none                   default
tank/backup/test  sync                  standard               default
tank/backup/test  refcompressratio      1.00x                  -
tank/backup/test  written               20.3G                  -
tank/backup/test  snapdev               hidden                 default

As a second test a 10GB file was created on a zfs filesystem on the same pool.

Allocated pool space before file creation:
8996065517568

Allocated pool space after file creation:
9012204183552

The difference is 16138665984 bytes (~15GB), the expected amount.

[dweeezil]

Looks like the same as #548. Your normal file will have likely used the default 128k block size as opposed to the default 8k block size for zvols.

[Lalufu]

Sounds reasonable. I don't expect high throughput from the zvol, so using larger sectors might be an option, even when this lowers the IOPS rate.

And yes, the normal zfs filesystems have 128k blocks.

[DeHackEd]

So here's the thing. Each 8k volume block has its own parity disks. That's how RAID-Z works. If you have 4k AF disks (zdb shows "ashift: 12") then what happens is each 8k block consists of 2x disks of data, and 2x disks of parity. You're expecting that generally there's 4x disks of data and 2x disks of parity all the way across the pool. There isn't.

Switch to using a block size of 16k or larger and you should be in better shape for space usage, at the expense of having a worse read-copy-write cycle for when smaller writes occur on the volume. With a filesystem's default of 128k you're already covered there.

[behlendorf]

Thanks for the quick explanation @dweeezil and @DeHackEd. Since this is just a matter of documentation I've marked it as such and will close the issue.

[Lalufu]

I just wanted to confirm that setting volblocksize=16k on the zvol made the problem disappear. Thanks to @dweeezil and @DeHackEd for the help.