DSM-G600, DNS-3xx and NSA-220 Hack Forum

mfpockets · 2011-03-17 03:16:19

Hello,

I got a new 2tb drive today, and I formatted it as EXT4. When it was done formatting, I mapped the drive in windows, it showed 93gb of used space and I havent even put any files on it yet...

Is this a known glitch?

It formats the drive and partitions some of it as swap even though my other drive already has a swap partition.

Off the status page:

Disks
Bay Dev. Model    Capacity    Power Status Temp Health
right sda WDC WD20EARS-00S8B1    2000.4 GB    active or idle 34    passed
left sdb ST31500341AS    1500.3 GB    active or idle 34    passed

Mounted Filesystems
Dev. Label Capacity Available FS Mode Dirty Automatic FSCK in
sda2    1.8TB 1.7TB ext4 RW 20 mounts or 179 days
sdb2    1.3TB 29.4GB ext3 RW 12 mounts or 118 days
sdb4    486.2MB 475.9MB ext3 RW 10 mounts or 118 days

I also attached a screenshot of disk>partitioner

I dont mind loosing 500mb to swap, but someone please tell me what I can do so I dont have to spare almost 100gb of space

Attachments:

disks.png, Size: 15,234 bytes, Downloads: 150

samfree · 2011-03-17 04:24:20

What firmware are you using? What about reformatting under EXT3 to see if it makes any difference. Maybe for some reason the journal is taking up a ton of space it shouldn't.

Failing that you could try running e2fsck to check for file system corruption (See procedure here)

Good luck... keep us posted.

P.S.: I bit the bullet and bought the more expensive WD20EADS drives, and they seem to work fine under EXT3 with FW v1.09.

mfpockets · 2011-03-17 05:24:51

Ended up with the same result on ext3. I'm just gonna throw this one in my desktop, and use my older seagate to through in the dns-323, that way it will be 2 identical 1.5tb drives.

dhub · 2011-03-17 06:14:46

The amount used on a new filesystem is the space taken up by the filesystem metadata and the journal.

samfree · 2011-03-17 07:51:02

Hi dhub - 93GB Why so much?

Hi mfpockets - What firmware are you using? I don't recognize that status display. Is it custom?

scaramanga · 2011-03-17 11:57:19

samfree wrote:
Hi dhub - 93GB Why so much?

Hi mfpockets - What firmware are you using? I don't recognize that status display. Is it custom?

Looks like Alt-F

mfpockets · 2011-03-17 12:39:52

It is indeed alt-f 0.1B6

I put the WD in my desktop. Backup up the current 1.5tb drive on the desktop, and put it in the NAS. It formatted correctly without me loosing space, and now the WD in the desktop shows 1.81tb.

Figured this was less headache. Not sure the WDEARS are compatible, from what I was reading online looks like it has to do with the 4k sectors.

EDIT: Looks like I may have spoke too soon. I didnt realize it before but my 2nd 1.5tb drive I put in the NAS seems to be doing the same thing. I am currently copying 801gb of TV shows I had from left drive to right drive and in windows it shows 84.3gb of used space on the drive but when I open the drive and check properties for all files transferred so far it shows only 14.3gb of files.

Looks like this one is also taking up 70gb of space for nothing.

When it was freshly formatted about 15 minutes ago it did look like this on my Alt-F status page so I thought all was well

Dev. Label Capacity Available FS Mode Dirty Automatic FSCK in
sda2 1.3TB 1.3TB ext3 RW 23 mounts or 179 days

Ill let it copy over the 800gb all day while I am at work, and then check the status after the copy is fully completed, but this is a little frustrating since both drives in there are the same make and model now.

Original drive shows 1.31tb of used space on the drive and 1.31tb of files when I open the drive and check properties for all contents so I see no reason why the drive in the right bay (new drive) won't behave the same way.

If anyone has any more tips or tricks for me to try after the copy is completed let me know!

Seems to be exactly proportional to the loss of GB before. 3/4 the size drive, and about 3/4 the amount of original "missing HDD space" (70 instead of 93).

It should be possible to fix, since when I put the drive in as it was originally formatted on my win7 machine it read the NTFS format and didnt need to be reformated but I figured it would be best to format it in native filesystem of the nas unit.

Last edited by mfpockets (2011-03-17 13:22:59)

mfpockets · 2011-03-18 00:44:56

So after formatting in ext2,3,4 on the NAS and on my HTPC running ubuntu with gparted, it shows 70gb of used space or only 1.27tb of space. Formatted as NTFS it shows as 1.36tb with only 108mb of used space.

Alt-F seems to support it formatted as NTFS, and seems like a better option than loosing 70gb of drive space especially when I am trying to make a full backup of my original 1.5tb drive, and can't afford to loose that space.

Still can't explain how the first drive got formatted fine in ext3...

Can anyone give me any reasons it is a bad idea to leave a NTFS formatted drive in the NAS unit? I only ask because the stock firmware and alt-f both do not offer to format the drive in this format.

Thoughts?

adambyrtek · 2011-03-18 00:48:15

By default mke2fs reserves 5% of the filesystem for privileged processes. You can change that easily with

Code:

tune2fs -m 0 /dev/foo

Last edited by adambyrtek (2011-03-18 00:49:13)

jcard · 2011-03-18 22:52:01

mfpockets wrote:
So after formatting in ext2,3,4 on the NAS and on my HTPC running ubuntu with gparted, it shows 70gb of used space or only 1.27tb of space. Formatted as NTFS it shows as 1.36tb with only 108mb of used space.

Alt-F seems to support it formatted as NTFS, and seems like a better option than loosing 70gb of drive space especially when I am trying to make a full backup of my original 1.5tb drive, and can't afford to loose that space.

Still can't explain how the first drive got formatted fine in ext3...

Can anyone give me any reasons it is a bad idea to leave a NTFS formatted drive in the NAS unit? I only ask because the stock firmware and alt-f both do not offer to format the drive in this format.

Thoughts?

Probably this is too late to be of any use, but I don't use to watch this forum for Alt-F related issues (and Alt-F was not mentioned in the subject)

There was as problem with 0.1B6 and big disks:

http://code.google.com/p/alt-f/issues/d … &can=1

fixed in 0.1B6+ as an experimental release:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1555717/DNS-323 … index.html

As for NTFS, you can use it to format disks if you install the Alt-F packages ntfs-tools. But, as I said to other user:

Don't use NTFS for the disks.
It is not a linux native format and support for its maintenance is not as good as for ext2/3/4, even if you nstall the ntfs utils package (which is not updated by several years now).
NTFS (as well as fat) exists in Alt-F mainly to enable using usb pens formatted under windows.

DSM-G600, DNS-3xx and NSA-220 Hack Forum

Announcement

#1 2011-03-17 03:16:19

Western Digital 2tb Drive

#2 2011-03-17 04:24:20

Re: Western Digital 2tb Drive

#3 2011-03-17 05:24:51

Re: Western Digital 2tb Drive

#4 2011-03-17 06:14:46

Re: Western Digital 2tb Drive

#5 2011-03-17 07:51:02

Re: Western Digital 2tb Drive

#6 2011-03-17 11:57:19

Re: Western Digital 2tb Drive

samfree wrote:

#7 2011-03-17 12:39:52

Re: Western Digital 2tb Drive

#8 2011-03-18 00:44:56

Re: Western Digital 2tb Drive

#9 2011-03-18 00:48:15

Re: Western Digital 2tb Drive

Code:

#10 2011-03-18 22:52:01

Re: Western Digital 2tb Drive

mfpockets wrote:

Board footer