RAID 5: weird size results after Grow

RAID 5: weird size results after Grow

[Marko Berg]

Hi folks,

I added a fourth drive to a RAID 5 array. After some complications 
related to adding a new HD controller at the same time, and thus 
changing some device names, I re-created the array and got it working 
(in the sense "nothing degraded"). But size results are weird. Each 
component partition is 320 G, does anyone have an explanation for the 
"Used Dev Size" field value below? The 960 G total size is as it should 
be, but in practice Linux reports the array only having 625,019,608 
blocks. How can this be, even though the array should be clean with 4 
active devices?

$  mdadm -D /dev/md0
/dev/md0:
        Version : 01.02.03
  Creation Time : Sat Oct 13 01:25:26 2007
     Raid Level : raid5
     Array Size : 937705344 (894.27 GiB 960.21 GB)
  Used Dev Size : 625136896 (298.09 GiB 320.07 GB)
   Raid Devices : 4
  Total Devices : 4
Preferred Minor : 0
    Persistence : Superblock is persistent
 
    Update Time : Sat Oct 13 05:11:38 2007
          State : clean
 Active Devices : 4
Working Devices : 4
 Failed Devices : 0
  Spare Devices : 0
 
         Layout : left-symmetric
     Chunk Size : 64K
 
           Name : 0
           UUID : 9bf903f8:7fc9eec1:2ff25011:37e9607b
         Events : 2
 
    Number   Major   Minor   RaidDevice State
       0     253        2        0      active sync   
/dev/VolGroup01/LogVol02
       1       8       33        1      active sync   /dev/sdc1
       2       8       49        2      active sync   /dev/sdd1
       3       8       17        3      active sync   /dev/sdb1


Results for mdadm -E <partition> on all devices appear like this one, 
with positions changed:

$ mdadm -E /dev/sdc1
/dev/sdc1:
          Magic : a92b4efc
        Version : 1.2
    Feature Map : 0x0
     Array UUID : 9bf903f8:7fc9eec1:2ff25011:37e9607b
           Name : 0
  Creation Time : Sat Oct 13 01:25:26 2007
     Raid Level : raid5
   Raid Devices : 4
 
  Used Dev Size : 625137010 (298.09 GiB 320.07 GB)
     Array Size : 1875410688 (894.27 GiB 960.21 GB)
      Used Size : 625136896 (298.09 GiB 320.07 GB)
    Data Offset : 272 sectors
   Super Offset : 8 sectors
          State : clean
    Device UUID : 9b2037fb:231a8ebf:1aaa5577:140795cc
 
    Update Time : Sat Oct 13 10:56:02 2007
       Checksum : c729f5a1 - correct
         Events : 2
 
         Layout : left-symmetric
     Chunk Size : 64K
 
    Array Slot : 1 (0, 1, 2, 3)
   Array State : uUuu


Particularly, "Used Dev Size" and "Used Size" report an amount twice the 
size of the partition (and device). Array size is here twice the actual 
size, even though shown correctly within parentheses.

Finally, mdstat shows the block count as it should be.

$ cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [raid6] [raid5] [raid4]
md0 : active raid5 sdb1[3] sdd1[2] sdc1[1] dm-2[0]
      937705344 blocks super 1.2 level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [4/4] 
[UUUU]
     
unused devices: <none>


Any suggestions on how to fix this, or what to investigate next, would 
be appreciated!

-- 
Marko

Re: RAID 5: weird size results after Grow

[Bill Davidsen]

Marko Berg wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I added a fourth drive to a RAID 5 array. After some complications 
> related to adding a new HD controller at the same time, and thus 
> changing some device names, I re-created the array and got it working 
> (in the sense "nothing degraded"). But size results are weird. Each 
> component partition is 320 G, does anyone have an explanation for the 
> "Used Dev Size" field value below? The 960 G total size is as it 
> should be, but in practice Linux reports the array only having 
> 625,019,608 blocks.

I don't see that number below, what command reported this?

> How can this be, even though the array should be clean with 4 active 
> devices?
>
> $  mdadm -D /dev/md0
> /dev/md0:
>        Version : 01.02.03
>  Creation Time : Sat Oct 13 01:25:26 2007
>     Raid Level : raid5
>     Array Size : 937705344 (894.27 GiB 960.21 GB)
>  Used Dev Size : 625136896 (298.09 GiB 320.07 GB)
>   Raid Devices : 4
>  Total Devices : 4
> Preferred Minor : 0
>    Persistence : Superblock is persistent
>
>    Update Time : Sat Oct 13 05:11:38 2007
>          State : clean
> Active Devices : 4
> Working Devices : 4
> Failed Devices : 0
>  Spare Devices : 0
>
>         Layout : left-symmetric
>     Chunk Size : 64K
>
>           Name : 0
>           UUID : 9bf903f8:7fc9eec1:2ff25011:37e9607b
>         Events : 2
>
>    Number   Major   Minor   RaidDevice State
>       0     253        2        0      active sync   
> /dev/VolGroup01/LogVol02
>       1       8       33        1      active sync   /dev/sdc1
>       2       8       49        2      active sync   /dev/sdd1
>       3       8       17        3      active sync   /dev/sdb1
>
>
> Results for mdadm -E <partition> on all devices appear like this one, 
> with positions changed:
>
> $ mdadm -E /dev/sdc1
> /dev/sdc1:
>          Magic : a92b4efc
>        Version : 1.2
>    Feature Map : 0x0
>     Array UUID : 9bf903f8:7fc9eec1:2ff25011:37e9607b
>           Name : 0
>  Creation Time : Sat Oct 13 01:25:26 2007
>     Raid Level : raid5
>   Raid Devices : 4
>
>  Used Dev Size : 625137010 (298.09 GiB 320.07 GB)
>     Array Size : 1875410688 (894.27 GiB 960.21 GB)
>      Used Size : 625136896 (298.09 GiB 320.07 GB)
>    Data Offset : 272 sectors
>   Super Offset : 8 sectors
>          State : clean
>    Device UUID : 9b2037fb:231a8ebf:1aaa5577:140795cc
>
>    Update Time : Sat Oct 13 10:56:02 2007
>       Checksum : c729f5a1 - correct
>         Events : 2
>
>         Layout : left-symmetric
>     Chunk Size : 64K
>
>    Array Slot : 1 (0, 1, 2, 3)
>   Array State : uUuu
>
>
> Particularly, "Used Dev Size" and "Used Size" report an amount twice 
> the size of the partition (and device). Array size is here twice the 
> actual size, even though shown correctly within parentheses.

Sectors are 512 bytes.
>
> Finally, mdstat shows the block count as it should be.
>
> $ cat /proc/mdstat
> Personalities : [raid6] [raid5] [raid4]
> md0 : active raid5 sdb1[3] sdd1[2] sdc1[1] dm-2[0]
>      937705344 blocks super 1.2 level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [4/4] 
> [UUUU]
>     unused devices: <none>
>
>
> 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.

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO TMR Associates, Inc
  Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979

Re: RAID 5: weird size results after Grow

[Marko Berg]

Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Marko Berg wrote:
>> I added a fourth drive to a RAID 5 array. After some complications 
>> related to adding a new HD controller at the same time, and thus 
>> changing some device names, I re-created the array and got it working 
>> (in the sense "nothing degraded"). But size results are weird. Each 
>> component partition is 320 G, does anyone have an explanation for the 
>> "Used Dev Size" field value below? The 960 G total size is as it 
>> should be, but in practice Linux reports the array only having 
>> 625,019,608 blocks.
>
> I don't see that number below, what command reported this?

For instance df:

$ df
Filesystem           1K-blocks      Used Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/md0             625019608 358223356 235539408  61% /usr/pub

>> How can this be, even though the array should be clean with 4 active 
>> devices?
>>
>> $  mdadm -D /dev/md0
>> /dev/md0:
>>        Version : 01.02.03
>>  Creation Time : Sat Oct 13 01:25:26 2007
>>     Raid Level : raid5
>>     Array Size : 937705344 (894.27 GiB 960.21 GB)
>>  Used Dev Size : 625136896 (298.09 GiB 320.07 GB)
>>   Raid Devices : 4
>>  Total Devices : 4
>> Preferred Minor : 0
>>    Persistence : Superblock is persistent
>>
>>    Update Time : Sat Oct 13 05:11:38 2007
>>          State : clean
>> Active Devices : 4
>> Working Devices : 4
>> Failed Devices : 0
>>  Spare Devices : 0
>>
>>         Layout : left-symmetric
>>     Chunk Size : 64K
>>
>>           Name : 0
>>           UUID : 9bf903f8:7fc9eec1:2ff25011:37e9607b
>>         Events : 2
>>
>>    Number   Major   Minor   RaidDevice State
>>       0     253        2        0      active sync   
>> /dev/VolGroup01/LogVol02
>>       1       8       33        1      active sync   /dev/sdc1
>>       2       8       49        2      active sync   /dev/sdd1
>>       3       8       17        3      active sync   /dev/sdb1
>>
>>
>> Results for mdadm -E <partition> on all devices appear like this one, 
>> with positions changed:
>>
>> $ mdadm -E /dev/sdc1
>> /dev/sdc1:
>>          Magic : a92b4efc
>>        Version : 1.2
>>    Feature Map : 0x0
>>     Array UUID : 9bf903f8:7fc9eec1:2ff25011:37e9607b
>>           Name : 0
>>  Creation Time : Sat Oct 13 01:25:26 2007
>>     Raid Level : raid5
>>   Raid Devices : 4
>>
>>  Used Dev Size : 625137010 (298.09 GiB 320.07 GB)
>>     Array Size : 1875410688 (894.27 GiB 960.21 GB)
>>      Used Size : 625136896 (298.09 GiB 320.07 GB)
>>    Data Offset : 272 sectors
>>   Super Offset : 8 sectors
>>          State : clean
>>    Device UUID : 9b2037fb:231a8ebf:1aaa5577:140795cc
>>
>>    Update Time : Sat Oct 13 10:56:02 2007
>>       Checksum : c729f5a1 - correct
>>         Events : 2
>>
>>         Layout : left-symmetric
>>     Chunk Size : 64K
>>
>>    Array Slot : 1 (0, 1, 2, 3)
>>   Array State : uUuu
>>
>>
>> Particularly, "Used Dev Size" and "Used Size" report an amount twice 
>> the size of the partition (and device). Array size is here twice the 
>> actual size, even though shown correctly within parentheses.
>
> Sectors are 512 bytes.

So "Used Dev Size" above uses sector size, while "Array Size" uses 1k 
blocks? I'm pretty sure, though, that previously "Used Dev Size" was in 
1k blocks too. That's also what most of the examples in the net seem to 
have.

>> Finally, mdstat shows the block count as it should be.
>>
>> $ cat /proc/mdstat
>> Personalities : [raid6] [raid5] [raid4]
>> md0 : active raid5 sdb1[3] sdd1[2] sdc1[1] dm-2[0]
>>      937705344 blocks super 1.2 level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [4/4] 
>> [UUUU]
>>     unused devices: <none>
>>
>>
>> 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?

-- 
Marko

Re: RAID 5: weird size results after Grow

[Corey Hickey]

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

Re: RAID 5: weird size results after Grow

[Marko Berg]

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

Re: RAID 5: weird size results after Grow

[Justin Piszcz]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007, Marko Berg wrote:

> Bill Davidsen wrote:
>> Marko Berg wrote:
>>> I added a fourth drive to a RAID 5 array. After some complications related 
>>> to adding a new HD controller at the same time, and thus changing some 
>>> device names, I re-created the array and got it working (in the sense 
>>> "nothing degraded"). But size results are weird. Each component partition 
>>> is 320 G, does anyone have an explanation for the "Used Dev Size" field 
>>> value below? The 960 G total size is as it should be, but in practice 
>>> Linux reports the array only having 625,019,608 blocks.
>> 
>> I don't see that number below, what command reported this?
>
> For instance df:
>
> $ df
> Filesystem           1K-blocks      Used Available Use% Mounted on
> /dev/md0             625019608 358223356 235539408  61% /usr/pub
>
>>> How can this be, even though the array should be clean with 4 active 
>>> devices?
>>> 
>>> $  mdadm -D /dev/md0
>>> /dev/md0:
>>>        Version : 01.02.03
>>>  Creation Time : Sat Oct 13 01:25:26 2007
>>>     Raid Level : raid5
>>>     Array Size : 937705344 (894.27 GiB 960.21 GB)
>>>  Used Dev Size : 625136896 (298.09 GiB 320.07 GB)
>>>   Raid Devices : 4
>>>  Total Devices : 4
>>> Preferred Minor : 0
>>>    Persistence : Superblock is persistent
>>>
>>>    Update Time : Sat Oct 13 05:11:38 2007
>>>          State : clean
>>> Active Devices : 4
>>> Working Devices : 4
>>> Failed Devices : 0
>>>  Spare Devices : 0
>>>
>>>         Layout : left-symmetric
>>>     Chunk Size : 64K
>>>
>>>           Name : 0
>>>           UUID : 9bf903f8:7fc9eec1:2ff25011:37e9607b
>>>         Events : 2
>>>
>>>    Number   Major   Minor   RaidDevice State
>>>       0     253        2        0      active sync 
>>> /dev/VolGroup01/LogVol02
>>>       1       8       33        1      active sync   /dev/sdc1
>>>       2       8       49        2      active sync   /dev/sdd1
>>>       3       8       17        3      active sync   /dev/sdb1
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Results for mdadm -E <partition> on all devices appear like this one, with 
>>> positions changed:
>>> 
>>> $ mdadm -E /dev/sdc1
>>> /dev/sdc1:
>>>          Magic : a92b4efc
>>>        Version : 1.2
>>>    Feature Map : 0x0
>>>     Array UUID : 9bf903f8:7fc9eec1:2ff25011:37e9607b
>>>           Name : 0
>>>  Creation Time : Sat Oct 13 01:25:26 2007
>>>     Raid Level : raid5
>>>   Raid Devices : 4
>>>
>>>  Used Dev Size : 625137010 (298.09 GiB 320.07 GB)
>>>     Array Size : 1875410688 (894.27 GiB 960.21 GB)
>>>      Used Size : 625136896 (298.09 GiB 320.07 GB)
>>>    Data Offset : 272 sectors
>>>   Super Offset : 8 sectors
>>>          State : clean
>>>    Device UUID : 9b2037fb:231a8ebf:1aaa5577:140795cc
>>>
>>>    Update Time : Sat Oct 13 10:56:02 2007
>>>       Checksum : c729f5a1 - correct
>>>         Events : 2
>>>
>>>         Layout : left-symmetric
>>>     Chunk Size : 64K
>>>
>>>    Array Slot : 1 (0, 1, 2, 3)
>>>   Array State : uUuu
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Particularly, "Used Dev Size" and "Used Size" report an amount twice the 
>>> size of the partition (and device). Array size is here twice the actual 
>>> size, even though shown correctly within parentheses.
>> 
>> Sectors are 512 bytes.
>
> So "Used Dev Size" above uses sector size, while "Array Size" uses 1k blocks? 
> I'm pretty sure, though, that previously "Used Dev Size" was in 1k blocks 
> too. That's also what most of the examples in the net seem to have.
>
>>> Finally, mdstat shows the block count as it should be.
>>> 
>>> $ cat /proc/mdstat
>>> Personalities : [raid6] [raid5] [raid4]
>>> md0 : active raid5 sdb1[3] sdd1[2] sdc1[1] dm-2[0]
>>>      937705344 blocks super 1.2 level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [4/4] 
>>> [UUUU]
>>>     unused devices: <none>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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?
>
> -- 
> Marko
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

You have to expand the filesystem.

Re: RAID 5: weird size results after Grow

[Justin Piszcz]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007, Marko Berg wrote:

> 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
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

Ah, already answered.

Justin.

Re: RAID 5: weird size results after Grow

[Corey Hickey]

Justin Piszcz wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007, Marko Berg wrote:
> 
>> 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!

No problem.

> Ah, already answered.

vger.kernel.org greylisted my smtp server, so it took my message a while 
to get to the list.

-Corey

Re: RAID 5: weird size results after Grow

[Bill Davidsen]

Marko Berg wrote:
> Bill Davidsen wrote:
>> Marko Berg wrote:
>>> I added a fourth drive to a RAID 5 array. After some complications 
>>> related to adding a new HD controller at the same time, and thus 
>>> changing some device names, I re-created the array and got it 
>>> working (in the sense "nothing degraded"). But size results are 
>>> weird. Each component partition is 320 G, does anyone have an 
>>> explanation for the "Used Dev Size" field value below? The 960 G 
>>> total size is as it should be, but in practice Linux reports the 
>>> array only having 625,019,608 blocks.
>>
>> I don't see that number below, what command reported this?
>
> For instance df:
>
> $ df
> Filesystem           1K-blocks      Used Available Use% Mounted on
> /dev/md0             625019608 358223356 235539408  61% /usr/pub
>
>>> How can this be, even though the array should be clean with 4 active 
>>> devices?

df reports the size of the filesystem, mdadm reports the size of the array.

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO TMR Associates, Inc
  Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979