On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Michael McLagan <mmclagan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello, > > I'm trying to set up a large array but isn't working. I tried > Googling size limits, etc and came up empty. > > The problem is that with 10 drives (300GB SCSI), the array is coming up > with 500GB of space?!? I did an experiment and when the array size > exceeds 2TB, it fails/wraps? > Looked at the mdadm output and ... Wow that's strange. You aren't supposed to be hitting any size limits there as far as I know, and I can't see that you're doing anything wrong - The "wraparound" just shouldn't be happening in my opinion. (But I'm a RAID rookie so don't take that as an expert judgement. Perhaps rather as some solidarity in a strange situation.) Anyway ... > Is there a solution (simple or otherwise) for this? The machine runs > 2.6.29.5 (anything later causes the machine to lock up :( ). I'm not > sure if mdadm or the kernel is the problem either. > That's kinda scary. Is this some unusual architecture or hardware configuration? I don't want to take this off-topic if you have determined the kernel version to be a fixed variable, but: Do you know why a newer kernel won't go? To me, newer-kernels-crashing indicates an irregularity under the hood. > Any suggestions appreciated Try upgrading mdadm. Either latest 2.x or 3.1.x. What the hey, try both. It's quite easy to compile mdadm yourself, and its for-stability releases are usually that: More stable. I've built mdadm a number of times when fooling around and it has always been quite good to me. (I.e. no exploding-in-face.) Good luck! -- Kristleifur -- 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
