From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Micha=B3_Przy=B3uski?= Subject: Re: RAID halting Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 10:53:25 +0200 Message-ID: <6c4602af0904250153i4dd01201j85b54aef24445a0c@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090425074027510.YPAD9976@cdptpa-omta03.mail.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090425074027510.YPAD9976@cdptpa-omta03.mail.rr.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: lrhorer@satx.rr.com Cc: Doug Ledford , Linux RAID List-Id: linux-raid.ids 2009/4/25 Leslie Rhorer : > I went ahead and selected 256K. There's something a little odd, though. > mdadm is reporting a device size of 2T. These are 1T drives. The overall > array size is correct but the device size is goofy. I hope this doesn't > cause any problems. As I believe I mentioned before (or maybe it was on > another list), I once had problems with ext3 trying to read beyond the > physical end of the array. > > RAID-Server:/Backup/Personal_Folders# mdadm -Dt /dev/md0 > /dev/md0: > Version : 01.02 > Creation Time : Sat Apr 25 01:17:12 2009 > Raid Level : raid6 > Array Size : 7814098944 (7452.11 GiB 8001.64 GB) > Used Dev Size : 1953524736 (1863.03 GiB 2000.41 GB) It's a bug in mdadm, probably leftover from blocks/sectors migration, I believe it was fixed in 2.6.9. The reality is looking okay, array is safe, it's just mdadm miscalculating on the very last stage of output. Greets, Mike