From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marko Berg Subject: Re: RAID 5: weird size results after Grow Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 20:32:51 +0300 Message-ID: <47110143.4060807@iki.fi> References: <47107DB5.10103@iki.fi> <4710C337.40708@tmr.com> <4710F021.30508@iki.fi> <4710FDAA.3050408@fatooh.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4710FDAA.3050408@fatooh.org> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Corey Hickey Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Corey Hickey wrote: > Marko Berg wrote: >> Bill Davidsen wrote: >>> Marko Berg wrote: >>>> Any suggestions on how to fix this, or what to investigate next, >>>> would be appreciated! >>>> >>> I'm not sure what you're trying to "fix" here, everything you posted >>> looks sane. >> >> I'm trying to find the missing 300 GB that, as df reports, are not >> available. I ought to have a 900 GB array, consisting of four 300 GB >> devices, while only 600 GB are available. Adding the fourth device >> didn't increase the capacity of the array (visible, at least). E.g. >> fdisk reports the array size to be 900 G, but df still claims 600 >> capacity. Any clues why? > > df reports the size of the filesystem, which is still about 600GB--the > filesystem doesn't resize automatically when the size of the > underlying device changes. > > You'll need to use resize2fs, resize_reiserfs, or whatever other tool > is appropriate for your type of filesystem. > > -Corey Right, so this isn't one of my sharpest days... Thanks a bunch, Corey! -- Marko