Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I currently have 9x1TB disks in RAID5, which to me is 8TB worth of storage. However, I am not getting that at all. This was after moving from RAID6 to RAID5 and performing the necessary commands to resize the filesystem.

mdadm --detail /dev/md0

/dev/md0:
        Version : 1.2
  Creation Time : Sun Apr  8 18:20:33 2012
     Raid Level : raid5
     Array Size : 7804669952 (7443.11 GiB 7991.98 GB)
  Used Dev Size : 975583744 (930.39 GiB 999.00 GB)
   Raid Devices : 9
  Total Devices : 9
    Persistence : Superblock is persistent

    Update Time : Tue Dec 10 10:15:08 2013
          State : clean
 Active Devices : 9
Working Devices : 9
 Failed Devices : 0
  Spare Devices : 0

         Layout : left-symmetric
     Chunk Size : 512K

           Name : ares:0  (local to host ares)
           UUID : 97b392d0:28dc5cc5:29ca9911:24cefb6b
         Events : 995494

    Number   Major   Minor   RaidDevice State
       0       8        1        0      active sync   /dev/sda1
       1       8       17        1      active sync   /dev/sdb1
       5       8       49        2      active sync   /dev/sdd1
       3       8       65        3      active sync   /dev/sde1
       4       8       81        4      active sync   /dev/sdf1
       9       8      113        5      active sync   /dev/sdh1
      11       8       97        6      active sync   /dev/sdg1
       6       8      145        7      active sync   /dev/sdj1
      10       8      129        8      active sync   /dev/sdi1

df -h

Filesystem Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/md0   7.2T  2.1T  4.8T  31% /mnt/raid

Is this normal and what I should expect or am I doing something wrong?

share|improve this question
2  
RAID5 is a terrible idea for an array that size. You should be using RAID6. If a drive fails or experiences an Unrecoverable Read Error, the chances of a second drive also failing before you swap the drive and complete the rebuild are not insignificant. –  longneck Dec 10 '13 at 15:25
    
@longneck I'm not running anything that's mission critical. In fact, I'm doing quite the opposite and all essential data is backed up offsite. From what I remember, the failure rate for RAID5 is 0.07% and RAID6 is 0.00001%. Not too significant right? –  Steven Lu Dec 10 '13 at 15:52
    
The failure rate is based on MTBF and URE frequency for the drives, and will therefor vary based on configuration. It can't be boiled down to a single, universal percentage. –  longneck Dec 10 '13 at 16:43

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

This is the age-old binary vs. denary kilo/mega/giga/terabytes issue.

Note the line

Array Size : 7804669952 (7443.11 GiB 7991.98 GB)

So whilst your array size is 7991.98 GB, using denary GB - that's pretty much exactly 8*1TB - using binary GiB it's 7443.11 GiB. Dividing by 2^10 again gives 7.27TiB, then losing about 1.5% to FS overhead takes us to 7.16TiB, or 7.2 with rounding, which is exactly what df is reporting.

To see a more detailed analysis of a similar array, including a justification for that "1.5%" figure, read my answer here

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.