> > I may have to rethink my position on using raw drives. If I > > partition the drives, I can make the partition a bit smaller than the > whole > > drive, allowing for the addition of a future drive whose size is a bit > off. > > I hate to waste space, but being stuck with an undersized or limping > array > > is worse. > > Yes it is. You can still use raw devices, just give the --size argument > when creating your array, and it won't use the largest size possible. That's a great idea. I think I'll implement it the next time I have to re-organize one of the arrays. > You'll want to work out how many KiB (i.e. 2^10 bytes) there are in a > drive manufacturer's MB (10^6), GB (10^9) or TB (10^12) and use that as > appropriate. For example, presumably all manufacturers' 500G drives will > have at least 500*10^9 bytes of storage on them, and divided by 1024 > that's 488281250. I'm not confidant of that presumption. I would not be surprised in the least if some manufacturer produced a 1T drive with an actual 999.8G of storage. The device sizes on my arrays are all 1000.205G or 1500.300G, respectively, so until I move to 3T drives, I'll just have to hope I don't get a smaller one. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
