Re: 15 * 180gb in raid5 gives 299.49 GiB ?

Re: 15 * 180gb in raid5 gives 299.49 GiB ?

[Stephan van Hienen]

argh :

tried to compile with this patch
tried on 2.4.20 , 2.4.21-pre1 and 2.4.21-pre4

        /usr/src/linux-2.4.21-pre1/arch/i386/lib/lib.a
/usr/src/linux-2.4.21-pre1/lib/lib.a
/usr/src/linux-2.4.21-pre1/arch/i386/lib/lib.a \
        --end-group \
        -o vmlinux
drivers/scsi/scsidrv.o: In function `ahc_linux_biosparam':
drivers/scsi/scsidrv.o(.text+0xf9c4): undefined reference to `__udivdi3'
drivers/scsi/scsidrv.o(.text+0xfa0c): undefined reference to `__udivdi3'





On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Stephan van Hienen wrote:

> hmms found out after posting this msg :
>
> http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au/patches-index.html
>
>   ³ ³ [*] Support for discs bigger than 2TB?  ³ ³
>
> -
> 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
>

Re: 15 * 180gb in raid5 gives 299.49 GiB ?

[Stephan van Hienen]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Peter Chubb wrote:

> OK, must have missed a change.
>
> In drivers/scsi/aic7xxx_osm.c find the function ahc_linux_biosparam()
> and  cast disk->capacity to unsigned int like so:
>
> -	cylinders = disk->capacity / (heads * sectors);
> +	cylinders = (unsigned)disk->capacity / (heads * sectors);

Thnx Peter, this fixes the compile error
now i run 2.4.20 with the patch, and build the raid correctly

only a small thing left (in the raid code?) that needs to be fixed :
(array size is neggative)
mdadm version 1.0.1
but maybe it is just mdadm which is a buggy program
since the 'Total Devices : 16' is also incorrect (seen before on multiple
systems)

]# mdadm -D /dev/md0
/dev/md0:
        Version : 00.90.00
  Creation Time : Thu Feb  6 14:20:02 2003
     Raid Level : raid5
     Array Size : -1833441152 (2347.49 GiB 2520.65 GB)
    Device Size : 175823296 (167.68 GiB 180.09 GB)
   Raid Devices : 15
  Total Devices : 16
Preferred Minor : 0
    Persistence : Superblock is persistent

    Update Time : Fri Feb  7 10:15:15 2003
          State : dirty, no-errors
 Active Devices : 15
Working Devices : 15
 Failed Devices : 1
  Spare Devices : 0

         Layout : left-symmetric
     Chunk Size : 64K

    Number   Major   Minor   RaidDevice State
       0       8       17        0      active sync   /dev/sdb1
       1       8       33        1      active sync   /dev/sdc1
       2       8       49        2      active sync   /dev/sdd1
       3       8       65        3      active sync   /dev/sde1
       4       8       81        4      active sync   /dev/sdf1
       5       8       97        5      active sync   /dev/sdg1
       6       8      113        6      active sync   /dev/sdh1
       7       8      129        7      active sync   /dev/sdi1
       8       3        1        8      active sync   /dev/hda1
       9      22        1        9      active sync   /dev/hdc1
      10      33        1       10      active sync   /dev/hde1
      11      56        1       11      active sync   /dev/hdi1
      12      57        1       12      active sync   /dev/hdk1
      13      88        1       13      active sync   /dev/hdm1
      14      89        1       14      active sync   /dev/hdo1
           UUID : 967349d3:ae82ce10:f6d112a5:dccda06b

]# cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [raid0] [raid5]
read_ahead 1024 sectors
md0 : active raid5 hdo1[14] hdm1[13] hdk1[12] hdi1[11] hde1[10] hdc1[9]
hda1[8] sdi1[7] sdh1[6] sdg1[5] sdf1[4] sde1[3] sdd1[2] sdc1[1] sdb1[0]
      2461526144 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [15/15]
[UUUUUUUUUUUUUUU]

unused devices: <none>

Re: raid5 2TB+ NO GO ?

[Stephan van Hienen]

On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Peter Chubb wrote:

> >>>>> "Stephan" == Stephan van Hienen <raid@a2000.nu> writes:
>
> Stephan,
> 	Just noticed you're using raid5 --- I don't believe that level
> 5 will work, as its data structures and  internal algorithms are
> 32-bit only.  I've done no work on it to make it work (I've been
> waiting for the rewrite in 2.5), and don't have time to do anything now.
>
> You could try making sector in the struct stripe_head a sector_t, but
> I'm pretty sure you'll run into other problems.
>
> I only managed to get raid 0 and linear to work when I was testing.

ok clear, so no raid5 for 2TB+ then :(

looks like i have to remove some hd's then

what will be the limit ?

13*180GB in raid5 ?
or 12*180GB in raid5 ?

    Device Size : 175823296 (167.68 GiB 180.09 GB)

13* will give me 1,97TiB but will there be an internal raid5 problem ?
(since it will be 13*180GB to be adressed)

Re: raid5 2TB+ NO GO ?

[Mike Black]

I did a 12x180G and as I recall was unable to do 13x180G as it overflowed during mke2fs.  This was a year ago though so I don't know
if that's been improved since then.

I've got 13 of these with one drive marked as a spare:
Disk /dev/sda: 255 heads, 63 sectors, 22072 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 bytes

  Device Boot    Start       End    Blocks   Id  System
/dev/sda1             1     22072 177293308+  fd  Linux raid autodetect

   Number   Major   Minor   RaidDevice State
      0       8      177        0      active sync   /dev/sdl1
      1       8       17        1      active sync   /dev/sdb1
      2       8       33        2      active sync   /dev/sdc1
      3       8        1        3      active sync   /dev/sda1
      4       8       49        4      active sync   /dev/sdd1
      5       8       65        5      active sync   /dev/sde1
      6       8       81        6      active sync   /dev/sdf1
      7       8       97        7      active sync   /dev/sdg1
      8       8      113        8      active sync   /dev/sdh1
      9       8      129        9      active sync   /dev/sdi1
     10       8      145       10      active sync   /dev/sdj1
     11       8      161       11      active sync   /dev/sdk1
     12      65       49       12        /dev/sdt1

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephan van Hienen" <raid@a2000.nu>
To: "Peter Chubb" <peter@chubb.wattle.id.au>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>; <bernard@biesterbos.nl>; <ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 5:39 AM
Subject: Re: raid5 2TB+ NO GO ?


> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Peter Chubb wrote:
>
> > >>>>> "Stephan" == Stephan van Hienen <raid@a2000.nu> writes:
> >
> > Stephan,
> > Just noticed you're using raid5 --- I don't believe that level
> > 5 will work, as its data structures and  internal algorithms are
> > 32-bit only.  I've done no work on it to make it work (I've been
> > waiting for the rewrite in 2.5), and don't have time to do anything now.
> >
> > You could try making sector in the struct stripe_head a sector_t, but
> > I'm pretty sure you'll run into other problems.
> >
> > I only managed to get raid 0 and linear to work when I was testing.
>
> ok clear, so no raid5 for 2TB+ then :(
>
> looks like i have to remove some hd's then
>
> what will be the limit ?
>
> 13*180GB in raid5 ?
> or 12*180GB in raid5 ?
>
>     Device Size : 175823296 (167.68 GiB 180.09 GB)
>
> 13* will give me 1,97TiB but will there be an internal raid5 problem ?
> (since it will be 13*180GB to be adressed)
>
>
> -
> 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

Re: raid5 2TB+ NO GO ?

[kernel]

On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Mike Black wrote:

> I did a 12x180G and as I recall was unable to do 13x180G as it overflowed during mke2fs.  This was a year ago though so I don't know
> if that's been improved since then.
>

does anyone know for sure what is the limit for md raid5 ?

can i use 13*180GB in raid5 ?
or should i go for 12*180GB in raid5 ?

Re: raid5 2TB+ NO GO ?

[Stephan van Hienen]

On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 kernel@ddx.a2000.nu wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Mike Black wrote:
>
> > I did a 12x180G and as I recall was unable to do 13x180G as it overflowed during mke2fs.  This was a year ago though so I don't know
> > if that's been improved since then.
> >
>
> does anyone know for sure what is the limit for md raid5 ?
>
> can i use 13*180GB in raid5 ?
> or should i go for 12*180GB in raid5 ?

I really want to create this raid this week
so is there anyone with info what will be the limit ?

what is the exact raid5 limit (2TB (can i use 12 or 13*180GB?))

[Stephan van Hienen]

On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Stephan van Hienen wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 kernel@ddx.a2000.nu wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Mike Black wrote:
> >
> > > I did a 12x180G and as I recall was unable to do 13x180G as it overflowed during mke2fs.  This was a year ago though so I don't know
> > > if that's been improved since then.
> > >
> >
> > does anyone know for sure what is the limit for md raid5 ?
> >
> > can i use 13*180GB in raid5 ?
> > or should i go for 12*180GB in raid5 ?

I really want to create this raid this week
so is there anyone with info what will be the limit ?