On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 09:43 +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > Yes - this mailing list. > The protocol is that as long as you care about the issue and haven't had > satisfactory response, you post a "Can anyone help with this" every week or > so. > That way we don't have a problem with lots of stale entries that no-one cares > about. okay... guess I need to track my ideas for additions to the documentation (like the ones below) somewhere else than... =) > chunksize is not very meaningful for RAID1. If you add '-v' mdadm should > tell you: > mdadm: chunk size ignored for this level Yeah... sure... I just made some tests and re-used the history from a previous raid6 and didn't remove the useless stuff ;) > Maybe it should round the size down to a multiple of the given chunk size, > but as you said "--size=max", maybe not.. Not sure. Interesting question... I'll try that later... maybe something we can add to the manpage as well. > > => Why is the array size / used dev size smaller? > > Good question. Not easy to answer ... it is rather convoluted. Different > bits of code try to reserve space for things differently and they don't end > up agreeing. I might try to simplify that. Okay... I have no idea what you're talking about ;-) It seems to it's always 144 sectors that are "missing"... What do you mean by simplify? > > --detail gives: > > Array Size : 10484664 (10.00 GiB 10.74 GB) > > Used Dev Size : 10484664 (10.00 GiB 10.74 GB) > > > > => That's half of the Array Size from above? Is that a bug? > The number is in K rather than sectors. Sorry :-( You know that these are the reasons why kernel developers may end up in hell?! ;-P okay... I guess again something for the documentation... or would you see a problem to change the output to at least include the unit? Like Array Size (KiB) or so? > Would that really help? Given that 10.00GiB is not exactly the same as > 10.74GB, isn't it obvious that they must be approximations? > > I'm not exactly against adding '~' but it doesn't seem necessary. > Does anyone else have thoughts? I don't think it's strictly necessary as well... but I guess it would be cleaner... Cheers, Chris.
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
