We help IT Professionals succeed at work.

Raid 5 array size misreported

Smugdad
Smugdad asked
on
Medium Priority
178 Views
Last Modified: 2013-11-14
Running four SCSI 73 G HDD's in a Windows 2000 server for data, with Raid 5 configuration via Win 2K Server's disk manager.  We had a disk fail, and it was replaced.  We rebuilt the array, Disk Manager shows all four disks "online" and working fine, but the data only shows as 205 gig and not 280 gig or more, which it should with four disks.  I'm at a loss; all four disks are shown as one drive as they should be, the sysinfo file shows all four disks correctly but still shows the volume as 70+ gig short.

How do we repair this?
Comment
Watch Question

Retired
CERTIFIED EXPERT
Most Valuable Expert 2013
Top Expert 2009
Commented:
A Raid-5 array with 4 disks will have a capacity equal to 3 of the disks ==> one disk is used for the parity information;  without the redundancy you would not be able to lose a disk without losing data.

Your size is absolutely correct -- you are mistaken in expecting 280gb.

Not the solution you were looking for? Getting a personalized solution is easy.

Ask the Experts

Commented:
Perhaps you were not running RAID 5 prior to the failure??  It's not clear that you rebuilt the array or "rebuilt" from a backup.  But a RAID 0 would have 280GB or so.  But, as garycase noted, a RAID 5 will have (73 * 4) - 73 GB of space in the array.  That should be about 220GB but, as you know, 73 GB is not necessarily 73GB...
Gary CaseRetired
CERTIFIED EXPERT
Most Valuable Expert 2013
Top Expert 2009

Commented:
"... 73 GB is not necessarily 73GB... " ==> well, 73GB is 73GB, but you do have to consider whether you're speaking "hard-disk-ese" or "computer-ese".   In "computer-ese" a GB = 1024x1024x1024; whereas in "hard-disk-ese" a GB = 1,000,000,000.   So a 73GB disk (as measured by the hard disk makers) will report 67.99GB in Explorer (which reports in "computer-ese").   So three of them will report 203.96GB.   The size of your disks is probably not EXACTLY 73GB -- so you're seeing 205GB instead of 203.96GB ==>  but as I noted, the size is absolutely correct for a RAID-5 array.

Gary CaseRetired
CERTIFIED EXPERT
Most Valuable Expert 2013
Top Expert 2009

Commented:
Smugdad -- did you have any further question about this?   In case you'd like to become more familiar with the various RAID levels, a quick "Google" on "RAID levels" will provide you with plenty of references of varying degrees of technical detail.   This is a fairly nice one that shows the most common levels pictorially:
http://www.prepressure.com/techno/raid.htm

Author

Commented:
Thanks, everybody!  I guess I just assumed (which has in it "ass" "su(e)" and "me") that 73*4 should be somewhere between 280 and 300.  My mistake.  Thanks to all of you for straightening me out!
Gary CaseRetired
CERTIFIED EXPERT
Most Valuable Expert 2013
Top Expert 2009

Commented:
You're welcome -- don't forget to close the question ("Accept" an answer or split the points, as you see fit)
Gary CaseRetired
CERTIFIED EXPERT
Most Valuable Expert 2013
Top Expert 2009

Commented:
Smugdad -- just noticed this was still open.   Don't forget to close it :-)   ("Accept" an answer or split the points, as you see fit)
Access more of Experts Exchange with a free account
Thanks for using Experts Exchange.

Create a free account to continue.

Limited access with a free account allows you to:

  • View three pieces of content (articles, solutions, posts, and videos)
  • Ask the experts questions (counted toward content limit)
  • Customize your dashboard and profile

*This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

OR

Please enter a first name

Please enter a last name

8+ characters (letters, numbers, and a symbol)

By clicking, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.