On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 7:26 PM, NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 12:17:02 +0200 "maciej.naruszewicz" > <maciej.naruszewicz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> From: maciej.naruszewicz <maciej.naruszewicz@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> Actual sizes of disks from different producers may vary, >> even though they are claimed to have the same amount of >> space > > Are you sure about this? > > It was my understanding that some industry association has arranged an > agreement so that this does not happen. > > http://www.idema.org/wp-content/plugins/download-monitor/download.php?id=1223 > > Do you have actual evidence that different drives from different > manufacturers have similar but not identical sizes? > Hmm, seemed to be a case that needed handling when requirements were being gathered, but perhaps recent drives don't do this any more? Probably the more important part of this commit is that the man page currently says that --size can not be used with container metadata... but now that I have taken two seconds to think about it the light bulb goes off... --size is indeed irrelevant for: mdadm --create /dev/md/imsm /dev/sd[a-d] -e imsm but my first reading of comment was that: mdadm --create /dev/md/vol0 /dev/md/imsm --size=$size ...is somehow not valid. How about something like "For CONTAINER metadata --size is valid when creating and growing subarrays, when creating a new container set --size is irrelevant" -- Dan -- 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
