upgraded from 6.3.5 to 6.4.0-rc8q and after battling the multiple cache profile notice I'm now questing the size of my cache pool.

everything is working (the two dockers on the cache drive) and everything seems normal.. just the size of the cache is smaller now.

 

 

Pretty sure before on 6.3.5 it was doing 80+40gb /2 so 60gb of space (unraid, data as blocks)... does unraid log what the profile it used when it created the cache pool?

Now in 6.4.0 its doing 'raid' where the smallest drive neuters the larger disk (raid1) (when I told it to rebalance it)...

 

The balance profile looks like what dictates how the cache pool is used.. and changing the balance does not wipe the drive/lose any data...

 

so could I just do raid0 and get 120 gb (unprotected) space by doing balance with:

-dconvert=raid0 -mconvert=raid0

 

Since you have different size devices best option for maximum space (without redundancy) is using the single profile, see here for all the available options:

 

 

Edited September 3, 20178 yr by johnnie.black

thanks! so looks like i'm stuck.. with the limitations that come with RAID when using different size drives

 

2 minutes ago, zoggy said:

thanks! so looks like i'm stuck.. with the limitations that come with RAID when using different size drives

 

 

Why stuck? Converting to single profile does what you want, 120GB usable capacity (without redundancy).

per the link

 

Quote

RAID0: requires 2 device, best performance, no redundancy, if used with different size devices only 2 x capacity of smallest device will be available, even if reported space is larger.

 

if what you said is true there, then raid0 with the 40+80, means I'll only end up with 80gb... if its really 120 then the FAQ link is just mistaken

 

let me try,

-dconvert=raid0 -mconvert=raid1

 

okay yeah faq is right.. so only end up with smallest drive x2...

 

 

 

Edited September 3, 20178 yr by zoggy

32 minutes ago, zoggy said:

if what you said is true there, then raid0 with the 40+80, means I'll only end up with 80gb

 

I said to use the single profile, not raid0.

the 'single' profile did group them as one big drive, thanks!

 

Edited September 4, 20178 yr by zoggy

There may be some btrfs size reporting issues still.  A definitive method for reporting available free space in btrfs remains elusive.