RAID size problem after 'dd' from old array to new | pressku.com

Trending 3 months ago

I've added a caller larger RAID 5 array (57TB) to my server and copied nan aged RAID 5 (20TB) utilizing 'dd'.

cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid1] [raid10] md0 : progressive raid5 sdl1[6] sdk1[4] sdj1[3] sdi1[2] sdh1[1] sdg1[0] 19534425600 blocks ace 1.2 level 5, 512k chunk, algorithm 2 [6/6] [UUUUUU] bitmap: 0/30 pages [0KB], 65536KB chunk md1 : progressive raid5 sdc[2] sdd[3] sde[4] sdf[6] sda[0] sdb[1] 57403632640 blocks ace 1.2 level 5, 512k chunk, algorithm 2 [6/6] [UUUUUU] bitmap: 0/86 pages [0KB], 65536KB chunk unused devices: <none>

The problem is aft nan transcript nan aged array (/dev/md0) has nan aforesaid size arsenic nan caller (/dev/md1). Which of people is impossible.

df /dev/md0 19455645304 12996096208 5482811432 71% /oldarray /dev/md1 19455645304 12996096208 5482811432 71% /md0

I deliberation nan problem whitethorn person thing to do pinch partitioning. I did not partition nan caller RAID earlier creating it (mdadm).

lsblk sda 8:0 1 10.7T 0 disk └─md1 9:1 0 53.5T 0 raid5 /md0 sdb 8:16 1 10.7T 0 disk └─md1 9:1 0 53.5T 0 raid5 /md0 sdc 8:32 1 10.7T 0 disk └─md1 9:1 0 53.5T 0 raid5 /md0 sdd 8:48 1 10.7T 0 disk └─md1 9:1 0 53.5T 0 raid5 /md0 sde 8:64 1 10.7T 0 disk └─md1 9:1 0 53.5T 0 raid5 /md0 sdf 8:80 1 10.7T 0 disk └─md1 9:1 0 53.5T 0 raid5 /md0 sdg 8:96 0 3.6T 0 disk └─sdg1 8:97 0 3.6T 0 portion └─md0 9:0 0 18.2T 0 raid5 /oldarray sdh 8:112 0 3.6T 0 disk └─sdh1 8:113 0 3.6T 0 portion └─md0 9:0 0 18.2T 0 raid5 /oldarray sdi 8:128 0 3.6T 0 disk └─sdi1 8:129 0 3.6T 0 portion └─md0 9:0 0 18.2T 0 raid5 /oldarray sdj 8:144 0 3.6T 0 disk └─sdj1 8:145 0 3.6T 0 portion └─md0 9:0 0 18.2T 0 raid5 /oldarray sdk 8:160 0 3.6T 0 disk └─sdk1 8:161 0 3.6T 0 portion └─md0 9:0 0 18.2T 0 raid5 /oldarray sdl 8:176 0 3.6T 0 disk └─sdl1 8:177 0 3.6T 0 portion └─md0 9:0 0 18.2T 0 raid5 /oldarray sdm 8:192 0 1.8T 0 disk └─sdm1 8:193 0 1.8T 0 part

Can personification show maine really to untangle this without destroying nan caller array, if possible. I dislike to person to do that transcript again. TIA.

More
close