| 1 |
On 19/01/15 18:45, Marc Stürmer wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am 19.01.2015 um 09:32 schrieb Bill Kenworthy: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Can someone suggest what is causing a balance on this raid 1, 3 disk |
| 5 |
>> volume to successfully complete but leave the data unevenly distributed? |
| 6 |
>> Content is mostly VM images. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> sdc and sdd are 2TB WD greens, and sda is a 2TB WD red. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Question: was /dev/sda a smaller HDD before the 2 TB WD red? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> If your sda was around 250 GB before you changed it with 2 TB, did you |
| 13 |
> just issue a "btrfs balance" after that? If so, Btrfs just configured |
| 14 |
> itself for 2*2 TB + 1*250 GB, that's why. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> The proper Btrfs way if replacing a smaller hdd for a bigger one in Raid |
| 17 |
> 1 is to issue "btrfs filesystem resize" to make it use all of the |
| 18 |
> available space. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> This would be one possible explanation for the behaviour of your array. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Brilliant, you have hit on the answer! - The ancient 300GB system disk |
| 24 |
was sda at one point and moved to sdb - possibly at the time I changed |
| 25 |
to using UUID's. Ive just resized all the disks and its now moved past |
| 26 |
300G for the first time as well as the other two falling in step with |
| 27 |
the data moving. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I moved to UUID's as the machine has a number of sata ports and a PCI-e |
| 30 |
sata adaptor and the sd* drive numbering kept moving around when I added |
| 31 |
the WD red. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
BillK |
Archives