* Should I be Worried: sda: p1 size .... limited to end of disk @ 2009-10-10 19:45 Eddie 2009-10-12 19:04 ` Grant Grundler 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Eddie @ 2009-10-10 19:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-scsi After the fun and games with my other LSI MegaRAID card, I'm a glutton for punishment. I'm building another system, which this time, has an LSI MegaRAID SATA 300-8X controller in it. This appears to be working perfectly, and a lot faster than my other card, with the exception of this warning message during boot: sda: p1 size 2930304132 limited to end of disk Is this something I should be worried about, and how does it come about. I built a new RAID 5, Logical device, on the card, which the LSI utility says is 1430511MB in size. Here's the relevant output from DMESG: scsi 4:1:0:0: Direct-Access MegaRAID LD 0 RAID5 1430G 815C PQ: 0 ANSI: 2 sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] 2929686528 512-byte hardware sectors: (1.49 TB/1.36 TiB) sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] Mode Sense: 00 00 00 00 sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] Asking for cache data failed sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] Assuming drive cache: write through sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] 2929686528 512-byte hardware sectors: (1.49 TB/1.36 TiB) sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] Mode Sense: 00 00 00 00 sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] Asking for cache data failed sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] Assuming drive cache: write through sda: sda1 sda: p1 size 2930304132 limited to end of disk sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] Attached SCSI disk sd 4:1:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg1 type 0 And /proc/partions: major minor #blocks name 3 0 20044080 hda 3 1 9727326 hda1 3 2 9727357 hda2 3 4 586372 hda4 8 0 1464843264 sda 8 1 1464843232 sda1 253 0 314572800 dm-0 253 1 157286400 dm-1 253 2 209715200 dm-2 253 3 104857600 dm-3 253 4 104857600 dm-4 253 5 262144000 dm-5 And fdisk: Disk /dev/sda: 1499.9 GB, 1499999502336 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 182364 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Disk identifier: 0x0003d809 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 1 182403 1465152066 8e Linux LVM So, where is the discrepancy creeping in. Also, I see this in DMESG: sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] Assuming drive cache: write through But, as this card has a battery backup, I have it set to "Write Back" in the configuration. So, what mode is it really operating in. Cheers, Eddie ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Should I be Worried: sda: p1 size .... limited to end of disk 2009-10-10 19:45 Should I be Worried: sda: p1 size .... limited to end of disk Eddie @ 2009-10-12 19:04 ` Grant Grundler 2009-10-12 20:04 ` Eddie 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Grant Grundler @ 2009-10-12 19:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: stunnel; +Cc: linux-scsi On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Eddie <stunnel@attglobal.net> wrote: > After the fun and games with my other LSI MegaRAID card, I'm a glutton for > punishment. > > I'm building another system, which this time, has an LSI MegaRAID SATA > 300-8X controller in it. This appears to be working perfectly, and a lot > faster than my other card, with the exception of this warning message during > boot: > > sda: p1 size 2930304132 limited to end of disk sda only has 2929686528 blocks - "p1" is somehow defined to go past the end of the RAID "device". I've no clue where the "2930304132" is coming from. I'd want to see the "raw" values the partition table. Seems like the partition table was written with the wrong size, > Is this something I should be worried about, and how does it come about. I > built a new RAID 5, Logical device, on the card, which the LSI utility says > is 1430511MB in size. 1430511*1024*2 2929686528 > > Here's the relevant output from DMESG: > > scsi 4:1:0:0: Direct-Access MegaRAID LD 0 RAID5 1430G 815C PQ: 0 ANSI: 2 > sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] 2929686528 512-byte hardware sectors: (1.49 TB/1.36 TiB) > sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off > sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] Mode Sense: 00 00 00 00 > sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] Asking for cache data failed > sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] Assuming drive cache: write through > sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] 2929686528 512-byte hardware sectors: (1.49 TB/1.36 TiB) > sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off > sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] Mode Sense: 00 00 00 00 > sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] Asking for cache data failed > sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] Assuming drive cache: write through > sda: sda1 > sda: p1 size 2930304132 limited to end of disk > sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] Attached SCSI disk > sd 4:1:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg1 type 0 > > And /proc/partions: > > major minor #blocks name > > 3 0 20044080 hda > 3 1 9727326 hda1 > 3 2 9727357 hda2 > 3 4 586372 hda4 > 8 0 1464843264 sda > 8 1 1464843232 sda1 > 253 0 314572800 dm-0 > 253 1 157286400 dm-1 > 253 2 209715200 dm-2 > 253 3 104857600 dm-3 > 253 4 104857600 dm-4 > 253 5 262144000 dm-5 > > > And fdisk: > > Disk /dev/sda: 1499.9 GB, 1499999502336 bytes > 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 182364 cylinders > Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes > Disk identifier: 0x0003d809 > > Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System > /dev/sda1 1 182403 1465152066 8e Linux LVM > > So, where is the discrepancy creeping in. Can you print this using "Units of Blocks" instead of "Cyclinders"? Use "-u" parameter. hth, grant > > Also, I see this in DMESG: > > sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] Assuming drive cache: write through > > But, as this card has a battery backup, I have it set to "Write Back" in the > configuration. So, what mode is it really operating in. > > Cheers, > Eddie > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Should I be Worried: sda: p1 size .... limited to end of disk 2009-10-12 19:04 ` Grant Grundler @ 2009-10-12 20:04 ` Eddie 2009-10-14 0:48 ` Eddie 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Eddie @ 2009-10-12 20:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Grant Grundler, linux-scsi Grant Grundler wrote: > On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Eddie <stunnel@attglobal.net> wrote: > >> After the fun and games with my other LSI MegaRAID card, I'm a glutton for >> punishment. >> >> I'm building another system, which this time, has an LSI MegaRAID SATA >> 300-8X controller in it. This appears to be working perfectly, and a lot >> faster than my other card, with the exception of this warning message during >> boot: >> >> sda: p1 size 2930304132 limited to end of disk >> > > sda only has 2929686528 blocks - "p1" is somehow defined to go past > the end of the RAID "device". > > I've no clue where the "2930304132" is coming from. I'd want to see > the "raw" values the partition table. > Seems like the partition table was written with the wrong size, > The raw partition table entry is: 00 01 01 00 8E FE FF FF 3F 00 00 00 84 E4 A8 AE Active Flag = 00 Starting Head = 01 Starting Cylinder = 0001 Partition Type = x'8E' - Linux LVM Ending Head = x'FE' - 254 Ending Cylinder/Sector = x'FFFF' - LBA Offset to Start = x'0000003F' - 63 # of Sectors = x'AEA8E484' - 2930304132 - Hmmmmmmm So, that looks like the culprit. Now, how did it happen. I know I can, sort of safely, rebuild that, by running (c)fdisk and making sure I start the partition at exactly the same point. But all I did the first time, was use cfdisk, and allocate the complete disk to the 1st primary partition. >> Is this something I should be worried about, and how does it come about. I >> built a new RAID 5, Logical device, on the card, which the LSI utility says >> is 1430511MB in size. >> > > 1430511*1024*2 > 2929686528 > > >> Here's the relevant output from DMESG: >> >> scsi 4:1:0:0: Direct-Access MegaRAID LD 0 RAID5 1430G 815C PQ: 0 ANSI: 2 >> sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] 2929686528 512-byte hardware sectors: (1.49 TB/1.36 TiB) >> sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off >> sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] Mode Sense: 00 00 00 00 >> sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] Asking for cache data failed >> sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] Assuming drive cache: write through >> sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] 2929686528 512-byte hardware sectors: (1.49 TB/1.36 TiB) >> sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off >> sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] Mode Sense: 00 00 00 00 >> sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] Asking for cache data failed >> sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] Assuming drive cache: write through >> sda: sda1 >> sda: p1 size 2930304132 limited to end of disk >> sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] Attached SCSI disk >> sd 4:1:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg1 type 0 >> >> And /proc/partions: >> >> major minor #blocks name >> >> 3 0 20044080 hda >> 3 1 9727326 hda1 >> 3 2 9727357 hda2 >> 3 4 586372 hda4 >> 8 0 1464843264 sda >> 8 1 1464843232 sda1 >> 253 0 314572800 dm-0 >> 253 1 157286400 dm-1 >> 253 2 209715200 dm-2 >> 253 3 104857600 dm-3 >> 253 4 104857600 dm-4 >> 253 5 262144000 dm-5 >> >> >> And fdisk: >> >> Disk /dev/sda: 1499.9 GB, 1499999502336 bytes >> 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 182364 cylinders >> Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes >> Disk identifier: 0x0003d809 >> >> Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System >> /dev/sda1 1 182403 1465152066 8e Linux LVM >> >> So, where is the discrepancy creeping in. >> > > Can you print this using "Units of Blocks" instead of "Cyclinders"? > Use "-u" parameter. > fdisk -l -u /dev/sda Disk /dev/sda: 1499.9 GB, 1499999502336 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 182364 cylinders, total 2929686528 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x0003d809 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 63 2930304194 1465152066 8e Linux LVM > hth, > grant > > >> Also, I see this in DMESG: >> >> sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] Assuming drive cache: write through >> >> But, as this card has a battery backup, I have it set to "Write Back" in the >> configuration. So, what mode is it really operating in. >> >> Cheers, >> Eddie >> >> >> Cheers, Eddie ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Should I be Worried: sda: p1 size .... limited to end of disk 2009-10-12 20:04 ` Eddie @ 2009-10-14 0:48 ` Eddie 2009-10-14 19:38 ` Grant Grundler 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Eddie @ 2009-10-14 0:48 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: Grant Grundler, linux-scsi Eddie wrote: > The raw partition table entry is: > > 00 01 01 00 8E FE FF FF 3F 00 00 00 84 E4 A8 AE > > Active Flag = 00 > Starting Head = 01 > Starting Cylinder = 0001 > Partition Type = x'8E' - Linux LVM > Ending Head = x'FE' - 254 > Ending Cylinder/Sector = x'FFFF' - LBA > Offset to Start = x'0000003F' - 63 > # of Sectors = x'AEA8E484' - 2930304132 - Hmmmmmmm > > So, that looks like the culprit. Now, how did it happen. I know I > can, sort of safely, rebuild that, by running (c)fdisk and making sure > I start the partition at exactly the same point. But all I did the > first time, was use cfdisk, and allocate the complete disk to the 1st > primary partition. OK, I recreated the partition table, trying both fdisk and cfdisk. I'm still not sure how the original had the wrong values in there. I guess that will remain a mystery. fdisk -l -u /dev/sda Disk /dev/sda: 1499.9 GB, 1499999502336 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 182364 cylinders, total 2929686528 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x0003d809 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 63 2929677659 1464838798+ 8e Linux LVM OK, the total sectors seems to match the hardware scan -> sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] 2929686528 512-byte hardware sectors: (1.49 TB/1.36 TiB) But 255 * 63 * 182364 = 2929677660. What's this discrepancy due to. Does the drive report ALL sectors, even the ones used to replace "bad" ones. However, 2929677660 does seem to tie up quite nicely with the "end sector", from the fdisk, so I'm assuming that everything is now correct. Well, apart from the fact that LVM reports a Total PE allocation of 357627 extents, which maps to 1464840192 Blocks, according to my maths anyway, which happens to be bigger than the "available" sectors on the disk. I guess it's time to hit the LVM list, to see if there's any way I can safely correct this, before anything tries to use the "phantom" sectors. Cheers, Eddie ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Should I be Worried: sda: p1 size .... limited to end of disk 2009-10-14 0:48 ` Eddie @ 2009-10-14 19:38 ` Grant Grundler 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Grant Grundler @ 2009-10-14 19:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: stunnel; +Cc: linux-scsi On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Eddie <stunnel@attglobal.net> wrote: .... > Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System > /dev/sda1 63 2929677659 1464838798+ 8e Linux LVM > > > OK, the total sectors seems to match the hardware scan -> sd 4:1:0:0: [sda] > 2929686528 512-byte hardware sectors: (1.49 TB/1.36 TiB) > > But 255 * 63 * 182364 = 2929677660. What's this discrepancy due to. Does > the drive report ALL sectors, even the ones used to replace "bad" ones. Definitely does not. SCSI disks report whatever number of sectors the firmware is told to report. That's *always* less than the actual number of physical sectors since drives need a reasonable supply of "spare" sectors/tracks. > However, 2929677660 does seem to tie up quite nicely with the "end sector", > from the fdisk, so I'm assuming that everything is now correct. > > Well, apart from the fact that LVM reports a Total PE allocation of 357627 > extents, which maps to 1464840192 Blocks, according to my maths anyway, > which happens to be bigger than the "available" sectors on the disk. I > guess it's time to hit the LVM list, to see if there's any way I can safely > correct this, before anything tries to use the "phantom" sectors. I expect the LVM needs to be resized anytime the size of the underlying partitions has changed. I'll bet there wiki/HOWTO someplace that describes how to do that. grant > > Cheers, > Eddie > > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-10-14 19:40 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2009-10-10 19:45 Should I be Worried: sda: p1 size .... limited to end of disk Eddie 2009-10-12 19:04 ` Grant Grundler 2009-10-12 20:04 ` Eddie 2009-10-14 0:48 ` Eddie 2009-10-14 19:38 ` Grant Grundler
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).