On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 09:43 +1000, NeilBrown wrote:

Yes - this mailing list.
The protocol is that as long as you care about the issue and haven't had
satisfactory response, you post a "Can anyone help with this" every week or
so.
That way we don't have a problem with lots of stale entries that no-one cares
about.

okay... guess I need to track my ideas for additions to the
documentation (like the ones below) somewhere else than... =)

chunksize is not very meaningful for RAID1.  If you add '-v' mdadm should
tell you:
  mdadm: chunk size ignored for this level

Yeah... sure... I just made some tests and re-used the history from a
previous raid6 and didn't remove the useless stuff ;)

Maybe it should round the size down to a multiple of the given chunk size,
but as you said "--size=max", maybe not..  Not sure.

Interesting question... I'll try that later... maybe something we can
add to the manpage as well.

quoted

=> Why is the array size / used dev size smaller?

Good question.  Not easy to answer ... it is rather convoluted.  Different
bits of code try to reserve space for things differently and they don't end
up agreeing.  I might try to simplify that.

Okay... I have no idea what you're talking about ;-)
It seems to it's always 144 sectors that are "missing"...

What do you mean by simplify?

quoted

--detail gives:
     Array Size : 10484664 (10.00 GiB 10.74 GB)
  Used Dev Size : 10484664 (10.00 GiB 10.74 GB)

=> That's half of the Array Size from above? Is that a bug?

The number is in K rather than sectors.  Sorry :-(

You know that these are the reasons why kernel developers may end up in
hell?! ;-P

okay... I guess again something for the documentation... or would you
see a problem to change the output to at least include the unit?
Like 
Array Size (KiB) or so?

Would that really help?  Given that 10.00GiB is not exactly the same as
10.74GB, isn't it obvious that they must be approximations?

I'm not exactly against adding '~' but it doesn't seem necessary.
Does anyone else have thoughts?

I don't think it's strictly necessary as well... but I guess it would be
cleaner...


Cheers,
Chris.