From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Corey Hickey Subject: Re: RAID 5: weird size results after Grow Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 10:17:30 -0700 Message-ID: <4710FDAA.3050408@fatooh.org> References: <47107DB5.10103@iki.fi> <4710C337.40708@tmr.com> <4710F021.30508@iki.fi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4710F021.30508@iki.fi> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Marko Berg Cc: davidsen@tmr.com, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids 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