Used Dev Size is wrong
Hello RAID gurus,
I recently upgraded my MD 10x1TB RAID6 to a 10x2TB RAID6. I did this by replacing all the 1TB drives in the array with 2TB drives, no more than 2 at a time, and letting the array rebuild to assimilate the fresh drive(s). The array finished its last rebuild and showed an Array Size of 8000GB, and a Used Dev Size of 2000GB. Since this isn't the 16TB I was looking for, I went through a grow operation:
# mdadm /dev/md4 -G -z max
This started a resync @ 50% complete and continued from there. This had the expected effect of increasing the reported Array Size to 16000GB, but it also unexpectedly increased the Used Dev Size to 4000GB! I'm worried this incorrect size will lead to errors down the road. What can I do to correct this? Here are the details of the case:
jo dev # cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4]
md4 : active raid6 sdl1[13] sdj1[19] sdg1[18] sdd1[17] sdf1[16] sdc1[15] sdi1[14] sde1[12] sdk1[11] sdh1[10]
15628094464 blocks super 1.2 level 6, 64k chunk, algorithm 2
[10/10] [UUUUUUUUUU]
[===========>.........] resync = 55.6% (1087519792/1953511808) finish=342.1min speed=42184K/sec
# mdadm --detail /dev/md4
/dev/md4:
Version : 1.02
Creation Time : Sun Aug 10 23:41:49 2008
Raid Level : raid6
Array Size : 15628094464 (14904.11 GiB 16003.17 GB)
Used Dev Size : 3907023616 (3726.03 GiB 4000.79 GB)
Raid Devices : 10
Total Devices : 10
Preferred Minor : 4
Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Sun Oct 25 09:07:29 2009
State : active, resyncing
Active Devices : 10
Working Devices : 10
Failed Devices : 0
Spare Devices : 0
Chunk Size : 64K
Rebuild Status : 55% complete
Name : 4
UUID : da14eb85:00658f24:80f7a070:b9026515
Events : 2901293Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
15 8 33 0 active sync /dev/sdc1
14 8 129 1 active sync /dev/sdi1
12 8 65 2 active sync /dev/sde1
16 8 81 3 active sync /dev/sdf1
17 8 49 4 active sync /dev/sdd1
18 8 97 5 active sync /dev/sdg1
10 8 113 6 active sync /dev/sdh1
19 8 145 7 active sync /dev/sdj1
11 8 161 8 active sync /dev/sdk1
13 8 177 9 active sync /dev/sdl1# uname -a Linux jo.bartk.us 2.6.29-gentoo-r5 #1 SMP Fri Jun 19 23:04:52 PDT 2009 x86_64 Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 2.80GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux
# mdadm --examine /dev/sdc1
/dev/sdc1:
Magic : a92b4efc
Version : 1.2
Feature Map : 0x0
Array UUID : da14eb85:00658f24:80f7a070:b9026515
Name : 4
Creation Time : Sun Aug 10 23:41:49 2008
Raid Level : raid6
Raid Devices : 10Avail Dev Size : 3907023730 (1863.01 GiB 2000.40 GB)
Array Size : 31256188928 (14904.11 GiB 16003.17 GB)
Used Dev Size : 3907023616 (1863.01 GiB 2000.40 GB)
Data Offset : 272 sectors
Super Offset : 8 sectors
State : active
Device UUID : 56d9fdeb:5170f643:5d4c4a2b:b656838a
Update Time : Sun Oct 25 09:07:29 2009
Checksum : c8785262 - correct
Events : 2901293
Chunk Size : 64K Array Slot : 15 (failed, failed, failed, failed, failed, failed,
failed, failed, failed, failed, 6, 8, 2, 9, 1, 0, 3, 4, 5, 7)
Array State : Uuuuuuuuuu 10 failed
# fdisk /dev/sdc
The number of cylinders for this disk is set to 243201. There is nothing wrong with that, but this is larger than 1024, and could in certain setups cause problems with:
1) software that runs at boot time (e.g., old versions of LILO)
2) booting and partitioning software from other OSs (e.g., DOS FDISK, OS/2 FDISK)
Command (m for help): p
Disk /dev/sdc: 2000.3 GB, 2000398934016 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 243201 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x3a18d025
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System/dev/sdc1 1 243201 1953512001 fd Linux raid autodetect
Thanks in advance for your help!
--Bart
Hello,
2009/10/25 Bart Kus <[email protected]>:
Quoted 6 lines
# mdadm --detail /dev/md4
/dev/md4:
Version : 1.02
Creation Time : Sun Aug 10 23:41:49 2008
Raid Level : raid6
Array Size : 15628094464 (14904.11 GiB 16003.17 GB)Quoted 8 lines
Used Dev Size : 3907023616 (3726.03 GiB 4000.79 GB) ... # mdadm --examine /dev/sdc1 /dev/sdc1: ... Avail Dev Size : 3907023730 (1863.01 GiB 2000.40 GB) Array Size : 31256188928 (14904.11 GiB 16003.17 GB) Used Dev Size : 3907023616 (1863.01 GiB 2000.40 GB)
Mostly likely cause is mdadm bug. Please let us know what's mdadm version, but I'd suggest getting the newest one, and just seeing if the output is correct. If I recall correctly, it's a bug related to a sector<->bytes change in output generating code. Not dangerous. It was brought to list's attention a while ago, I suppose it might've been in 2.6.7? From what I have installed here right now .4 and .9 are okay, and .7 is just wrong.
And, as an aside comment, I think that some values of --detail, --examine and cat /proc/mdstat are not always what you'd expect during ongoing reshape. So if anything else is inconsistent right now, you might want to wait.
Cheers,
Mike
Quoted 33 lines · Michał Przyłuski
Hello,
2009/10/25 Bart Kus <[email protected]>:
Quoted 6 lines
# mdadm --detail /dev/md4 /dev/md4: Version : 1.02 Creation Time : Sun Aug 10 23:41:49 2008 Raid Level : raid6 Array Size : 15628094464 (14904.11 GiB 16003.17 GB)Quoted 9 lines
Used Dev Size : 3907023616 (3726.03 GiB 4000.79 GB) ... # mdadm --examine /dev/sdc1 /dev/sdc1: ... Avail Dev Size : 3907023730 (1863.01 GiB 2000.40 GB) Array Size : 31256188928 (14904.11 GiB 16003.17 GB) Used Dev Size : 3907023616 (1863.01 GiB 2000.40 GB)Mostly likely cause is mdadm bug. Please let us know what's mdadm version, but I'd suggest getting the newest one, and just seeing if the output is correct. If I recall correctly, it's a bug related to a sector<->bytes change in output generating code. Not dangerous. It was brought to list's attention a while ago, I suppose it might've been in 2.6.7? From what I have installed here right now .4 and .9 are okay, and .7 is just wrong.
And, as an aside comment, I think that some values of --detail, --examine and cat
/proc/mdstatare not always what you'd expect during ongoing reshape. So if anything else is inconsistent right now, you might want to wait.
Quoted 7 lines
Cheers,
Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Excellent! I'm running mdadm 2.6.8. I compiled 2.6.9 in /tmp/ and when using that binary, it does show the correct size. When Gentoo decides to upgrade, this little problem should fix itself.
Thanks!
--Bart
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Quoted 26 lines · you
Hello RAID gurus,
I recently upgraded my MD 10x1TB RAID6 to a 10x2TB RAID6. I did this by replacing all the 1TB drives in the array with 2TB drives, no more than 2 at a time, and letting the array rebuild to assimilate the fresh drive(s). The array finished its last rebuild and showed an Array Size of 8000GB, and a Used Dev Size of 2000GB. Since this isn't the 16TB I was looking for, I went through a grow operation:
# mdadm /dev/md4 -G -z maxThis started a resync @ 50% complete and continued from there. This had the expected effect of increasing the reported Array Size to 16000GB, but it also unexpectedly increased the Used Dev Size to 4000GB! I'm worried this incorrect size will lead to errors down the road. What can I do to correct this? Here are the details of the case:
jo dev # cat
/proc/mdstat
Personalities : [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4]
md4 : active raid6 sdl1[13] sdj1[19] sdg1[18] sdd1[17] sdf1[16] sdc1[15] sdi1[14] sde1[12] sdk1[11] sdh1[10]15628094464 blocks super 1.2 level 6, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [10/10] [UUUUUUUUUU] [===========>.........] resync = 55.6% (1087519792/1953511808)finish=342.1min speed=42184K/sec
Quoted 7 lines
# mdadm --detail /dev/md4
/dev/md4:
Version : 1.02
Creation Time : Sun Aug 10 23:41:49 2008
Raid Level : raid6
Array Size : 15628094464 (14904.11 GiB 16003.17 GB)
Used Dev Size : 3907023616 (3726.03 GiB 4000.79 GB)This looks a little odd though, I can't imagine why it thinks your disks are 4TB :o
mine: (new array)
Array Size : 3907049472 (3726.05 GiB 4000.82 GB)
Used Dev Size : 976762368 (931.51 GiB 1000.20 GB)
Quoted 47 lines
Raid Devices : 10
Total Devices : 10
Preferred Minor : 4
Persistence : Superblock is persistentUpdate Time : Sun Oct 25 09:07:29 2009
State : active, resyncing
Active Devices : 10
Working Devices : 10
Failed Devices : 0
Spare Devices : 0Chunk Size : 64K
Rebuild Status : 55% complete
Name : 4
UUID : da14eb85:00658f24:80f7a070:b9026515
Events : 2901293Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
15 8 33 0 active sync/dev/sdc1
14 8 129 1 active sync/dev/sdi1
12 8 65 2 active sync/dev/sde1
16 8 81 3 active sync/dev/sdf1
17 8 49 4 active sync/dev/sdd1
18 8 97 5 active sync/dev/sdg1
10 8 113 6 active sync/dev/sdh1
19 8 145 7 active sync/dev/sdj1
11 8 161 8 active sync/dev/sdk1
13 8 177 9 active sync/dev/sdl1# uname -a Linux jo.bartk.us 2.6.29-gentoo-r5 #1 SMP Fri Jun 19 23:04:52 PDT 2009 x86_64 Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 2.80GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux# mdadm --examine /dev/sdc1 /dev/sdc1: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 1.2 Feature Map : 0x0 Array UUID : da14eb85:00658f24:80f7a070:b9026515 Name : 4 Creation Time : Sun Aug 10 23:41:49 2008 Raid Level : raid6 Raid Devices : 10
Quoted 3 lines
Avail Dev Size : 3907023730 (1863.01 GiB 2000.40 GB)
Array Size : 31256188928 (14904.11 GiB 16003.17 GB)Used Dev Size : 3907023616 (1863.01 GiB 2000.40 GB)
I don't see anything particularly wrong about that:
mine shows: (old array)
Used Dev Size : 625129216 (596.17 GiB 640.13 GB)
Array Size : 1875387648 (1788.51 GiB 1920.40 GB)
and: (new array)
Avail Dev Size : 1953524904 (931.51 GiB 1000.20 GB)
Array Size : 7814098944 (3726.05 GiB 4000.82 GB)
Used Dev Size : 1953524736 (931.51 GiB 1000.20 GB)
which is perfectly correct. It seems like --detail and --examine aren't agreeing for some reason. Maybe one of the superblocks on one of the disks is not correct?
[snip]
Quoted 10 lines
Thanks in advance for your help!
--Bart
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Signature · 2 lines
Thomas Fjellstrom [email protected]