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

ruddj · 2009-01-23 16:41:36

Good Day,
I have two 1TB Samsung drives in my DNS-323. Previously I had them configured in a 200GB RAID1 + JBOD, but after one of the drives failed and I lost all JBOD files I changes to using 2 separate drives (1 original and 1 replacement). I let the web interface format them and experienced the 94% bug, but it seemed OK in the end.

I have just been looking at df and noticed that although drives should be identical, sda2 reports only having 183 GB while sdb2 reports the full 915GB. I checked fdisk -l and both drives appear to be partitioned the same.

Does anyone know what may have caused this and more importantly how I could fix it?
(Running FFP 0.5 and FW 1.06, drives are both SAMSUNG HD103UJ)

# df -h
Filesystem Size Used Available Use% Mounted on
rootfs 9.7M 7.5M 1.7M 82% /
/dev/root 9.7M 7.5M 1.7M 82% /
/dev/loop0 5.6M 5.6M 0 100% /sys/crfs
/dev/sda2 183.1G 35.2G 147.9G 19% /mnt/HD_a2
/dev/sdb2 915.9G 20.0G 895.9G 2% /mnt/HD_b2
/dev/sda4 486.2M 472.0k 485.7M 0% /mnt/HD_a4
/dev/sdb4 486.2M 7.0k 486.2M 0% /mnt/HD_b4

# fdisk -l

Disk /dev/sda: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121601 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 1 66 530113+ 82 Linux swap
/dev/sda2 131 121601 975715807+ 83 Linux
/dev/sda4 67 130 514080 83 Linux

Partition table entries are not in disk order

Disk /dev/sdb: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121601 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sdb1 1 66 530113+ 82 Linux swap
/dev/sdb2 131 121601 975715807+ 83 Linux
/dev/sdb4 67 130 514080 83 Linux

Partition table entries are not in disk order

Thanks.

silversurfer · 2009-01-23 19:53:03

First I would backup the data which is still on disk /dev/sda. After that I would create a new ext2 file system for /dev/sda2 using mke2fs.

Just curious, what does the web page tell you about the disk size?

ruddj · 2009-01-24 00:33:18

silversurfer wrote:
First I would backup the data which is still on disk /dev/sda. After that I would create a new ext2 file system for /dev/sda2 using mke2fs.

I was afraid of that.

Web reports:
Total Drive(s):    2
Volume Name:    Volume_1
Total Hard Drive Capacity:    196576 MB
Used Space:    33745 MB
Unused Space:    162830 MB
Volume Name:    Volume_2
Total Hard Drive Capacity:    983454 MB
Used Space:    21510 MB
Unused Space:    961943 MB

I'm going to try running fsck to check it, but it had to be the root partition with all my apps on it
Moving it to another PC to check.

Thanks for your help.

ruddj · 2009-01-24 03:06:25

Thanks for your suggestion.

I managed to fix it by connecting it to another PC, booting off a Knoppix CD and running resize2fs on the drive. It automatically resized the ext2 format to fill the partition. So it now reports 915GB and still has all my files.

silversurfer · 2009-01-24 14:12:40

Good solution! I hope you did a backup before anyway. It's no good idea to try funny things with file systems when you have no backup.

ruddj · 2009-01-24 16:36:08

It didn't have any unique files so I wasn't that worried. I'd only formatted the HDDs around 2 days previously when the replacement Samsung drive had arrived.
I backed up all my ffp directories (tar -czvp) as that was where I'd made all my changes. Most annoying thing would have been losing my BackupPC files as they had taken several hours to run (although they were only 1 day old).
The rest of it was just music I'm copying from desktop to network.

I ran a fsck on the partition to check for any errors and when it reported everything was OK I ran a simply 'resize2fs /dev/sda2' and it expanded to fill the partition.

I'm just glad I noticed it as it's not immediately obvious until you look at remaining space. A few more weeks and it would have been much harder to backup.

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

Announcement

#1 2009-01-23 16:41:36

Partitions reporting incorrect size

#2 2009-01-23 19:53:03

Re: Partitions reporting incorrect size

#3 2009-01-24 00:33:18

Re: Partitions reporting incorrect size

silversurfer wrote:

#4 2009-01-24 03:06:25

Re: Partitions reporting incorrect size

#5 2009-01-24 14:12:40

Re: Partitions reporting incorrect size

#6 2009-01-24 16:36:08

Re: Partitions reporting incorrect size

Board footer