New issues with setup storage - disc too small

[David Dreezer]

David Dreezer
Customer Advocate, Social Strata, Inc.

> 
> [...]
> 
> mdadm --examine --scan --verbose -c partitions

root at fw1dv:~# mdadm --examine --scan --verbose -c partition
ARRAY /dev/md/0 level=raid1 metadata=1.2 num-devices=2 UUID=3b0ecb6c:9462a669:87bd52cd:a3bd3bcd name=fw1dv.dv01.groupee-inc.net:0
   devices=/dev/sda1,/dev/sdb1
ARRAY /dev/md/1 level=raid1 metadata=1.2 num-devices=2 UUID=a0ed07d4:0d02a43a:310e8130:f0d719f6 name=fw1dv.dv01.groupee-inc.net:1
   devices=/dev/sda5
ARRAY /dev/md/2 level=raid1 metadata=1.2 num-devices=2 UUID=f65009b7:92ef90f0:6fa791a5:b436806c name=fw1dv.dv01.groupee-inc.net:2
   devices=/dev/sda6
ARRAY /dev/md/3 level=raid1 metadata=1.2 num-devices=2 UUID=d0b57e19:32c66851:78159bc8:e3c0f483 name=fw1dv.dv01.groupee-inc.net:3
   devices=/dev/sda7
ARRAY /dev/md/4 level=raid1 metadata=1.2 num-devices=2 UUID=0d4d256f:aade5d07:28aca0ba:c1efe3c5 name=fw1dv.dv01.groupee-inc.net:4
   devices=/dev/sda8
ARRAY /dev/md/5 level=raid1 metadata=1.2 num-devices=2 UUID=9f62047a:771e4180:4142eb78:0c592dd0 name=fw1dv.dv01.groupee-inc.net:5
   devices=/dev/sda9
ARRAY /dev/md/6 level=raid1 metadata=1.2 num-devices=2 UUID=f2ab28ea:3cb8679b:066a7a89:0779a8bd name=fw1dv.dv01.groupee-inc.net:6
   devices=/dev/sda10

> 
> in the current system? It seems that /dev/sdb5 is part of some device, either a
> RAID array or an LVM volume if you have such a thing running as well. But the
> original call of mdadm --examine didn't show that, maybe things changed after
> the mdadm-startall. Yet this doesn't give a good reason why it doesn't work as
> at least the arrays md0-md6 have been shut down - are there any other arrays
> running? What does cat /proc/mdstat tell?

root at fw1dv:~# cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [raid1] 
unused devices: <none>
root at fw1dv:~#

There shouldn't be any other array of any sort running. Our config should account for the entirety of the drives. I wonder if there is something wrong with the config that I'm trying to use? That it used to work doesn't necessarily mean that perhaps an adjustment is not in order, does it?

> 
> Thanks a lot,
> Michael
>