On Tue, 9 Jul 2013 20:22:22 +0200 martin f krafft <madduck@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello, > > We have a RAID10 across 4 3TB drives (metadata version 1.2, > 2 offset-copies, bitmaps), with LVM on top. We are running out of > space, but we don't really want to invest in 4 new 4TB drives right > now. > > Is it possible to replace only two of the 3TB drives with 4TB drives > and get an extra terrabyte into the array somehow? > > Anything I tried so far on a test system didn't work. I can add the > new devices to the RAID, but if I try to grow the array to the new > size, I get: > > mdadm: component size of /dev/md2 unchanged at X > > Do I have to fail two drives, create a new RAID10, add a new LVM PV > on it, and pvmove the data over, all the while hoping that none of > the four disks die — even though there is a backup (the two failed > drives), that's a one-shot backup and that is too risky. > > That said, it isn't even possible to have a RAID10 across 2x2 pairs > of disks with different sizes, is it? Why not? I'd really rather > avoid pulling two RAID1s together with LVM, although I guess that is > essentially the same as RAID10. Hi Martin. Now you cannot have any array-with-redundancy using different amounts of different devices. All devices must contribute equally to the array (this doesn't apply to RAID0 or Linear, only RAID1 and higher numbers). This is because the definition of a "spare" device would become more complicated. You would need two different sized spares, or have to choose whether it is OK to use a "big" spare to replace a "small" device, or maybe have an array with a spare and a failed device and not be able to rebuild because the spare isn't big enough. It really is much easier to just say "no". To get the sort of flexibility you want you would need to have two separate RAID1s which are combined with LVM. NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
