On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 09:43 +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> Yes - this mailing list.
> The protocol is that as long as you care about the issue and haven't had
> satisfactory response, you post a "Can anyone help with this" every week or
> so.
> That way we don't have a problem with lots of stale entries that no-one cares
> about.
okay... guess I need to track my ideas for additions to the
documentation (like the ones below) somewhere else than... =)


> chunksize is not very meaningful for RAID1.  If you add '-v' mdadm should
> tell you:
>   mdadm: chunk size ignored for this level
Yeah... sure... I just made some tests and re-used the history from a
previous raid6 and didn't remove the useless stuff ;)


> Maybe it should round the size down to a multiple of the given chunk size,
> but as you said "--size=max", maybe not..  Not sure.
Interesting question... I'll try that later... maybe something we can
add to the manpage as well.


> > => Why is the array size / used dev size smaller?
> 
> Good question.  Not easy to answer ... it is rather convoluted.  Different
> bits of code try to reserve space for things differently and they don't end
> up agreeing.  I might try to simplify that.
Okay... I have no idea what you're talking about ;-)
It seems to it's always 144 sectors that are "missing"...

What do you mean by simplify?


> > --detail gives:
> >      Array Size : 10484664 (10.00 GiB 10.74 GB)
> >   Used Dev Size : 10484664 (10.00 GiB 10.74 GB)
> > 
> > => That's half of the Array Size from above? Is that a bug?
> The number is in K rather than sectors.  Sorry :-(
You know that these are the reasons why kernel developers may end up in
hell?! ;-P

okay... I guess again something for the documentation... or would you
see a problem to change the output to at least include the unit?
Like 
Array Size (KiB) or so?


> Would that really help?  Given that 10.00GiB is not exactly the same as
> 10.74GB, isn't it obvious that they must be approximations?
> 
> I'm not exactly against adding '~' but it doesn't seem necessary.
> Does anyone else have thoughts?
I don't think it's strictly necessary as well... but I guess it would be
cleaner...


Cheers,
Chris.