May 31, 20179 yr Hi folks, i implemented a new 4TB Disk yesterday and i found some strange things now on the Main-Page of unraid: 1. The Disk has 488MB less then the other 4TB-Disk. All of them are WD-REDs 2. The Disk is empty but shows 4517MB used space Some suggestions, why this infos are different? Edited May 31, 20179 yr by Zonediver
May 31, 20179 yr Either HPA is in use or it was an external disk, you can check using the serial number on WD's RMA page.
May 31, 20179 yr Author Its a brand new disk bought yesterday. The Disk was welded in an antistatic pack and all SMART values are Zero. Edited May 31, 20179 yr by Zonediver
May 31, 20179 yr Disks are all the same size, it may be related to it being rebuild from a smaller disk, wouldn't worry about it. As for the used size it's normal to have a few GBs used with an empty disk.
May 31, 20179 yr Author Just now, johnnie.black said: Disks are all the same size, it may be related to it being rebuild from a smaller disk, wouldn't worry about it. As for the used size it's normal to have a few GBs used with an empty disk. Ok then i ignore it Thanks again for your help johnnie.
June 14, 20179 yr Regarding your first point, I have noticed this in the past after replacing a disk with a larger one. The process of expanding the file system to occupy the whole of the available space doesn't appear to be as successful as if you simply add a disk and format it. I had a discussion about it couple of years or so ago and I'll add the link if I can find it. Which process did you use to introduce the new disk to the array? On your second point, older versions of unRAID used to report a fairly consistent 30 or so megabytes used by an empty XFS file system, regardless of the capacity of the disk. Nowadays, it seems more like 0.11% of the disk capacity. That makes quite a significant difference with multi-terabyte hard disks. You're seeing over 4 GB used. On 5 and 6 TB disks I see 5.5 and 6.6 GB used, respectively. There was a big update to XFS around the time unRAID 6.3 appeared. I should think that was the cause. FWIW my three servers are running 6.3.4, 6.3.5 and 6.4.0-rc2 and they all show much greater disk usage by empty XFS file systems than they used to.
June 14, 20179 yr 8 minutes ago, John_M said: On your second point, older versions of unRAID used to report a fairly consistent 30 or so megabytes used by an empty XFS file system, regardless of the capacity of the disk. Nowadays, it seems more like 0.11% of the disk capacity WAG, maybe the space reservation for file system growth is more aggressive now? The fastest portion of a spinner is the very first tracks, so reserving those for indexes and other housekeeping areas makes sense.
June 14, 20179 yr Author 1 hour ago, John_M said: Regarding your first point, I have noticed this in the past after replacing a disk with a larger one. The process of expanding the file system to occupy the whole of the available space doesn't appear to be as successful as if you simply add a disk and format it. I had a discussion about it couple of years or so ago and I'll add the link if I can find it. Which process did you use to introduce the new disk to the array? On your second point, older versions of unRAID used to report a fairly consistent 30 or so megabytes used by an empty XFS file system, regardless of the capacity of the disk. Nowadays, it seems more like 0.11% of the disk capacity. That makes quite a significant difference with multi-terabyte hard disks. You're seeing over 4 GB used. On 5 and 6 TB disks I see 5.5 and 6.6 GB used, respectively. There was a big update to XFS around the time unRAID 6.3 appeared. I should think that was the cause. FWIW my three servers are running 6.3.4, 6.3.5 and 6.4.0-rc2 and they all show much greater disk usage by empty XFS file systems than they used to. It was a replacement for a defective 3TB WD-Red. I just swaped the Disk and this was the result. Edited June 14, 20179 yr by Zonediver
June 14, 20179 yr Author 3 hours ago, John_M said: @Zonediver That is consistent with my findings back in 2015, here Hmmm... and how is this fixable? EDIT: Found it - will try it and see what happens EDIT2: After changing to reiserFS and back to xfs, the disk has now the full size again Strange thing: reiserFS needs 33,6MB on the empty disk (4TB), xfs takes 4019MB of space... EDIT3: Did a mistake... the disk has "not" the full size... All 4TB disks have 3.999.810 MB - the reformated has only 3.998.833 MB So the procedure didn't help... Edited June 15, 20179 yr by Zonediver
June 15, 20179 yr I never got round to trying Gary's suggestion as the disks were becoming flaky. I should think replacing the partition table would help recover the missing space. The easiest way to do that would be to pre-clear the disk but in order to do that it would first need to be removed from the array, which clearly has consequences as far as parity is concerned.
June 15, 20179 yr 2 hours ago, Zonediver said: Strange thing: reiserFS needs 33,6MB on the empty disk (4TB), xfs takes 4019MB of space... Discussed above. XFS used to take up far less space.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.