Ubuntu show wrong disk sizes, how to solve it?Need to reboot twice when Ubuntu 12.04.1 mdadm RAID1 degradedThe volume boot has only 40mb disk space remainingDrive failure in Raid1. Can't replaceBreaking boot-up Raid 1 array into two independent drivesRAID disk size is less than display in SSA on HP Proliant DL380 Gen10Help figuring out what's taking up disk space

Zoom in / Zoom out symbol

Water Jug Problem in AI

Mordhau grip for bludgeoning damage?

Will you be able to hear a supersonic aircraft flying away from you?

What color is a wolf's coat?

What are the origins of "Download", "upload", "downstream", "upstream", and why are they respectively down or up?

Did any astronauts on a mission complain about waking up?

Should I report a security vulnerability?

How does Rogue from the X-Men fly?

Why do Muslim refugees seek asylum in Europe and not in rich countries in the Middle East?

How to get best taste out of tomatoes?

Does Bluetooth interfere with WiFi?

How to use rules — did this change between editions and how?

What are the colours of Lisa's jewelry in portrait room?

Solving Fizz Buzz using LINQ in C#

Interview question: If correlation doesn't imply causation, how do you detect causation?

If Space Shuttle flies "like a brick", why does it need the wings?

Medium - Rare steak as meal prep ok?

What's the difference between words "tongue" and "lingua"?

Why didn't Abraham ask the single best question?

What´s the purpose of this diode?

Origin of 〜かった?

copying files with a string in their name from one folder to another

Changing vertex order for polygons in QGIS?



Ubuntu show wrong disk sizes, how to solve it?


Need to reboot twice when Ubuntu 12.04.1 mdadm RAID1 degradedThe volume boot has only 40mb disk space remainingDrive failure in Raid1. Can't replaceBreaking boot-up Raid 1 array into two independent drivesRAID disk size is less than display in SSA on HP Proliant DL380 Gen10Help figuring out what's taking up disk space






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;









7

















I have a server with these characteristics:



CPU: Intel Core i7-2600
PLUSRAID Controller 4-Port SATA PCI-E - Adaptec 5405

One each, SATA SSD, 240 GB

Two each, SATA HDDs, 3.0 TB Enterprise

Two each, 8 GB DDR3 RAM



I installed Ubuntu on it, but it shows the space such as this, far less than the true capacity:




root@ns1 /boot # lsblk
NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT
sdb 8:16 1 238.4G 0 disk
├─sdb2 8:18 1 512M 0 part
│ └─md1 9:1 0 511.4M 0 raid1 /boot
├─sdb3 8:19 1 229.9G 0 part
│ └─md2 9:2 0 229.8G 0 raid1 /
└─sdb1 8:17 1 8G 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 8G 0 raid1 [SWAP]
sda 8:0 1 2.7T 0 disk
├─sda2 8:2 1 512M 0 part
│ └─md1 9:1 0 511.4M 0 raid1 /boot
├─sda3 8:3 1 229.9G 0 part
│ └─md2 9:2 0 229.8G 0 raid1 /
└─sda1 8:1 1 8G 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 8G 0 raid1 [SWAP]


and




root@ns1 /boot # df -lh
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
udev 7.8G 0 7.8G 0% /dev
tmpfs 1.6G 5.3M 1.6G 1% /run
/dev/md2 226G 17G 198G 8% /
tmpfs 7.8G 0 7.8G 0% /dev/shm
tmpfs 5.0M 0 5.0M 0% /run/lock
tmpfs 7.8G 0 7.8G 0% /sys/fs/cgroup
/dev/md1 488M 176M 287M 38% /boot
tmpfs 1.6G 0 1.6G 0% /run/user/0



I don't seem to be using all the space available on the sda disk at all, the two 3 terabytes disks.



What am I doing wrong?



Thanks!










share|improve this question























  • 2





    What is wrong ?

    – Soren A
    Aug 6 at 12:45











  • Thanks Soren, you've pointed something out I hadn't even noticed. So the 3TB disk(s) are there in lsblk but the total capacity I'm allowed to use like this is far less than 3TB.

    – Lex Thoonen
    Aug 6 at 13:16







  • 9





    One problem I see here. You did a RAID 1 (mirrored) on a 3TB drive and a 240GB drive. The problem is that the Mirrored RAID will only be at the size of the SMALLEST drive so you will only get 240GB out of 3TB. Destroy your RAID and do them as separate drives but you will lose data so backup first.

    – Terrance
    Aug 6 at 13:53












  • Also of note, the SWAP partition should only be on the SSD and not the adaptec, which will slow it to a fraction of its possible performance

    – Richie Frame
    Aug 7 at 4:15











  • Thanks people! I'll go for this.

    – Lex Thoonen
    Aug 7 at 9:09


















7

















I have a server with these characteristics:



CPU: Intel Core i7-2600
PLUSRAID Controller 4-Port SATA PCI-E - Adaptec 5405

One each, SATA SSD, 240 GB

Two each, SATA HDDs, 3.0 TB Enterprise

Two each, 8 GB DDR3 RAM



I installed Ubuntu on it, but it shows the space such as this, far less than the true capacity:




root@ns1 /boot # lsblk
NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT
sdb 8:16 1 238.4G 0 disk
├─sdb2 8:18 1 512M 0 part
│ └─md1 9:1 0 511.4M 0 raid1 /boot
├─sdb3 8:19 1 229.9G 0 part
│ └─md2 9:2 0 229.8G 0 raid1 /
└─sdb1 8:17 1 8G 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 8G 0 raid1 [SWAP]
sda 8:0 1 2.7T 0 disk
├─sda2 8:2 1 512M 0 part
│ └─md1 9:1 0 511.4M 0 raid1 /boot
├─sda3 8:3 1 229.9G 0 part
│ └─md2 9:2 0 229.8G 0 raid1 /
└─sda1 8:1 1 8G 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 8G 0 raid1 [SWAP]


and




root@ns1 /boot # df -lh
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
udev 7.8G 0 7.8G 0% /dev
tmpfs 1.6G 5.3M 1.6G 1% /run
/dev/md2 226G 17G 198G 8% /
tmpfs 7.8G 0 7.8G 0% /dev/shm
tmpfs 5.0M 0 5.0M 0% /run/lock
tmpfs 7.8G 0 7.8G 0% /sys/fs/cgroup
/dev/md1 488M 176M 287M 38% /boot
tmpfs 1.6G 0 1.6G 0% /run/user/0



I don't seem to be using all the space available on the sda disk at all, the two 3 terabytes disks.



What am I doing wrong?



Thanks!










share|improve this question























  • 2





    What is wrong ?

    – Soren A
    Aug 6 at 12:45











  • Thanks Soren, you've pointed something out I hadn't even noticed. So the 3TB disk(s) are there in lsblk but the total capacity I'm allowed to use like this is far less than 3TB.

    – Lex Thoonen
    Aug 6 at 13:16







  • 9





    One problem I see here. You did a RAID 1 (mirrored) on a 3TB drive and a 240GB drive. The problem is that the Mirrored RAID will only be at the size of the SMALLEST drive so you will only get 240GB out of 3TB. Destroy your RAID and do them as separate drives but you will lose data so backup first.

    – Terrance
    Aug 6 at 13:53












  • Also of note, the SWAP partition should only be on the SSD and not the adaptec, which will slow it to a fraction of its possible performance

    – Richie Frame
    Aug 7 at 4:15











  • Thanks people! I'll go for this.

    – Lex Thoonen
    Aug 7 at 9:09














7












7








7








I have a server with these characteristics:



CPU: Intel Core i7-2600
PLUSRAID Controller 4-Port SATA PCI-E - Adaptec 5405

One each, SATA SSD, 240 GB

Two each, SATA HDDs, 3.0 TB Enterprise

Two each, 8 GB DDR3 RAM



I installed Ubuntu on it, but it shows the space such as this, far less than the true capacity:




root@ns1 /boot # lsblk
NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT
sdb 8:16 1 238.4G 0 disk
├─sdb2 8:18 1 512M 0 part
│ └─md1 9:1 0 511.4M 0 raid1 /boot
├─sdb3 8:19 1 229.9G 0 part
│ └─md2 9:2 0 229.8G 0 raid1 /
└─sdb1 8:17 1 8G 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 8G 0 raid1 [SWAP]
sda 8:0 1 2.7T 0 disk
├─sda2 8:2 1 512M 0 part
│ └─md1 9:1 0 511.4M 0 raid1 /boot
├─sda3 8:3 1 229.9G 0 part
│ └─md2 9:2 0 229.8G 0 raid1 /
└─sda1 8:1 1 8G 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 8G 0 raid1 [SWAP]


and




root@ns1 /boot # df -lh
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
udev 7.8G 0 7.8G 0% /dev
tmpfs 1.6G 5.3M 1.6G 1% /run
/dev/md2 226G 17G 198G 8% /
tmpfs 7.8G 0 7.8G 0% /dev/shm
tmpfs 5.0M 0 5.0M 0% /run/lock
tmpfs 7.8G 0 7.8G 0% /sys/fs/cgroup
/dev/md1 488M 176M 287M 38% /boot
tmpfs 1.6G 0 1.6G 0% /run/user/0



I don't seem to be using all the space available on the sda disk at all, the two 3 terabytes disks.



What am I doing wrong?



Thanks!










share|improve this question

















I have a server with these characteristics:



CPU: Intel Core i7-2600
PLUSRAID Controller 4-Port SATA PCI-E - Adaptec 5405

One each, SATA SSD, 240 GB

Two each, SATA HDDs, 3.0 TB Enterprise

Two each, 8 GB DDR3 RAM



I installed Ubuntu on it, but it shows the space such as this, far less than the true capacity:




root@ns1 /boot # lsblk
NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT
sdb 8:16 1 238.4G 0 disk
├─sdb2 8:18 1 512M 0 part
│ └─md1 9:1 0 511.4M 0 raid1 /boot
├─sdb3 8:19 1 229.9G 0 part
│ └─md2 9:2 0 229.8G 0 raid1 /
└─sdb1 8:17 1 8G 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 8G 0 raid1 [SWAP]
sda 8:0 1 2.7T 0 disk
├─sda2 8:2 1 512M 0 part
│ └─md1 9:1 0 511.4M 0 raid1 /boot
├─sda3 8:3 1 229.9G 0 part
│ └─md2 9:2 0 229.8G 0 raid1 /
└─sda1 8:1 1 8G 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 8G 0 raid1 [SWAP]


and




root@ns1 /boot # df -lh
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
udev 7.8G 0 7.8G 0% /dev
tmpfs 1.6G 5.3M 1.6G 1% /run
/dev/md2 226G 17G 198G 8% /
tmpfs 7.8G 0 7.8G 0% /dev/shm
tmpfs 5.0M 0 5.0M 0% /run/lock
tmpfs 7.8G 0 7.8G 0% /sys/fs/cgroup
/dev/md1 488M 176M 287M 38% /boot
tmpfs 1.6G 0 1.6G 0% /run/user/0



I don't seem to be using all the space available on the sda disk at all, the two 3 terabytes disks.



What am I doing wrong?



Thanks!







partitioning hard-drive raid






share|improve this question
















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Aug 6 at 16:50









K7AAY

6,6705 gold badges21 silver badges49 bronze badges




6,6705 gold badges21 silver badges49 bronze badges










asked Aug 6 at 12:43









Lex ThoonenLex Thoonen

383 bronze badges




383 bronze badges










  • 2





    What is wrong ?

    – Soren A
    Aug 6 at 12:45











  • Thanks Soren, you've pointed something out I hadn't even noticed. So the 3TB disk(s) are there in lsblk but the total capacity I'm allowed to use like this is far less than 3TB.

    – Lex Thoonen
    Aug 6 at 13:16







  • 9





    One problem I see here. You did a RAID 1 (mirrored) on a 3TB drive and a 240GB drive. The problem is that the Mirrored RAID will only be at the size of the SMALLEST drive so you will only get 240GB out of 3TB. Destroy your RAID and do them as separate drives but you will lose data so backup first.

    – Terrance
    Aug 6 at 13:53












  • Also of note, the SWAP partition should only be on the SSD and not the adaptec, which will slow it to a fraction of its possible performance

    – Richie Frame
    Aug 7 at 4:15











  • Thanks people! I'll go for this.

    – Lex Thoonen
    Aug 7 at 9:09













  • 2





    What is wrong ?

    – Soren A
    Aug 6 at 12:45











  • Thanks Soren, you've pointed something out I hadn't even noticed. So the 3TB disk(s) are there in lsblk but the total capacity I'm allowed to use like this is far less than 3TB.

    – Lex Thoonen
    Aug 6 at 13:16







  • 9





    One problem I see here. You did a RAID 1 (mirrored) on a 3TB drive and a 240GB drive. The problem is that the Mirrored RAID will only be at the size of the SMALLEST drive so you will only get 240GB out of 3TB. Destroy your RAID and do them as separate drives but you will lose data so backup first.

    – Terrance
    Aug 6 at 13:53












  • Also of note, the SWAP partition should only be on the SSD and not the adaptec, which will slow it to a fraction of its possible performance

    – Richie Frame
    Aug 7 at 4:15











  • Thanks people! I'll go for this.

    – Lex Thoonen
    Aug 7 at 9:09








2




2





What is wrong ?

– Soren A
Aug 6 at 12:45





What is wrong ?

– Soren A
Aug 6 at 12:45













Thanks Soren, you've pointed something out I hadn't even noticed. So the 3TB disk(s) are there in lsblk but the total capacity I'm allowed to use like this is far less than 3TB.

– Lex Thoonen
Aug 6 at 13:16






Thanks Soren, you've pointed something out I hadn't even noticed. So the 3TB disk(s) are there in lsblk but the total capacity I'm allowed to use like this is far less than 3TB.

– Lex Thoonen
Aug 6 at 13:16





9




9





One problem I see here. You did a RAID 1 (mirrored) on a 3TB drive and a 240GB drive. The problem is that the Mirrored RAID will only be at the size of the SMALLEST drive so you will only get 240GB out of 3TB. Destroy your RAID and do them as separate drives but you will lose data so backup first.

– Terrance
Aug 6 at 13:53






One problem I see here. You did a RAID 1 (mirrored) on a 3TB drive and a 240GB drive. The problem is that the Mirrored RAID will only be at the size of the SMALLEST drive so you will only get 240GB out of 3TB. Destroy your RAID and do them as separate drives but you will lose data so backup first.

– Terrance
Aug 6 at 13:53














Also of note, the SWAP partition should only be on the SSD and not the adaptec, which will slow it to a fraction of its possible performance

– Richie Frame
Aug 7 at 4:15





Also of note, the SWAP partition should only be on the SSD and not the adaptec, which will slow it to a fraction of its possible performance

– Richie Frame
Aug 7 at 4:15













Thanks people! I'll go for this.

– Lex Thoonen
Aug 7 at 9:09






Thanks people! I'll go for this.

– Lex Thoonen
Aug 7 at 9:09











3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















12


















It looks like that you have made raid1 (mirror) between partitions on your SSD and HDD. This is not best practice, since it more or less restricts performance to that of the slowest disk.



You can see that /boot, / and [ SWAP ] is defined on partitions on both /dev/sda and /dev/sdb.



sdb 8:16 1 238.4G 0 disk
├─sdb2 8:18 1 512M 0 part
│ └─md1 9:1 0 511.4M 0 raid1 /boot
├─sdb3 8:19 1 229.9G 0 part
│ └─md2 9:2 0 229.8G 0 raid1 /
└─sdb1 8:17 1 8G 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 8G 0 raid1 [SWAP]
sda 8:0 1 2.7T 0 disk
├─sda2 8:2 1 512M 0 part
│ └─md1 9:1 0 511.4M 0 raid1 /boot
├─sda3 8:3 1 229.9G 0 part
│ └─md2 9:2 0 229.8G 0 raid1 /
└─sda1 8:1 1 8G 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 8G 0 raid1 [SWAP]


I would recommend that you reinstall Ubuntu using only SSD for /boot, / and SWAP. If yopu really want a raid1/mirror setup, you should buy one more 240 GB SSD, so you mirror between similar type and size disks.



Anyway .. if you take a look at your disks with gparted (or fdisk -l) you should see a huge unallocated amount of data on /dev/sda.






share|improve this answer


























  • It also looks like sda is a hardware raid mirror, in addition to THAT being a mirror of sdb.

    – Richie Frame
    Aug 7 at 4:14


















2


















The reason why your "3,0 TB" drive (sda) shows up as 2.7T is most likely due to different units being used.



The size is probably about 2.7 Tebibyte, which is approximately the same as 3.0 TB.



You can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tebibyte






share|improve this answer


























  • Thank you, but still, it seems like this I only have access to 230 GB, it would be nice if I could use the 2.7 TB

    – Lex Thoonen
    Aug 6 at 13:23






  • 1





    @LexThoonen You do have access to 240GB. Run dmesg | grep blocks in a terminal and you will see something like [ 3.989812] sd 4:0:0:0: [sde] 468862128 512-byte logical blocks: (240 GB/224 GiB) which shows that you are seeing the GiB of the drive and not the GB. The 3TB drive shows up like [ 3.462108] sd 10:0:0:0: [sdb] 732566645 4096-byte logical blocks: (3.00 TB/2.73 TiB)

    – Terrance
    Aug 6 at 13:44



















2


















lsblk shows all disk partitions, while df -lh only shows your mounted partitions.






share|improve this answer























  • 1





    Don't do that .. sda2 seems to be a part of a raid1 (mirror) ...

    – Soren A
    Aug 6 at 13:45











  • You are right. I removed the example.

    – user3140225
    Aug 6 at 13:47












Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "89"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);














draft saved

draft discarded
















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f1163809%2fubuntu-show-wrong-disk-sizes-how-to-solve-it%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown


























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









12


















It looks like that you have made raid1 (mirror) between partitions on your SSD and HDD. This is not best practice, since it more or less restricts performance to that of the slowest disk.



You can see that /boot, / and [ SWAP ] is defined on partitions on both /dev/sda and /dev/sdb.



sdb 8:16 1 238.4G 0 disk
├─sdb2 8:18 1 512M 0 part
│ └─md1 9:1 0 511.4M 0 raid1 /boot
├─sdb3 8:19 1 229.9G 0 part
│ └─md2 9:2 0 229.8G 0 raid1 /
└─sdb1 8:17 1 8G 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 8G 0 raid1 [SWAP]
sda 8:0 1 2.7T 0 disk
├─sda2 8:2 1 512M 0 part
│ └─md1 9:1 0 511.4M 0 raid1 /boot
├─sda3 8:3 1 229.9G 0 part
│ └─md2 9:2 0 229.8G 0 raid1 /
└─sda1 8:1 1 8G 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 8G 0 raid1 [SWAP]


I would recommend that you reinstall Ubuntu using only SSD for /boot, / and SWAP. If yopu really want a raid1/mirror setup, you should buy one more 240 GB SSD, so you mirror between similar type and size disks.



Anyway .. if you take a look at your disks with gparted (or fdisk -l) you should see a huge unallocated amount of data on /dev/sda.






share|improve this answer


























  • It also looks like sda is a hardware raid mirror, in addition to THAT being a mirror of sdb.

    – Richie Frame
    Aug 7 at 4:14















12


















It looks like that you have made raid1 (mirror) between partitions on your SSD and HDD. This is not best practice, since it more or less restricts performance to that of the slowest disk.



You can see that /boot, / and [ SWAP ] is defined on partitions on both /dev/sda and /dev/sdb.



sdb 8:16 1 238.4G 0 disk
├─sdb2 8:18 1 512M 0 part
│ └─md1 9:1 0 511.4M 0 raid1 /boot
├─sdb3 8:19 1 229.9G 0 part
│ └─md2 9:2 0 229.8G 0 raid1 /
└─sdb1 8:17 1 8G 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 8G 0 raid1 [SWAP]
sda 8:0 1 2.7T 0 disk
├─sda2 8:2 1 512M 0 part
│ └─md1 9:1 0 511.4M 0 raid1 /boot
├─sda3 8:3 1 229.9G 0 part
│ └─md2 9:2 0 229.8G 0 raid1 /
└─sda1 8:1 1 8G 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 8G 0 raid1 [SWAP]


I would recommend that you reinstall Ubuntu using only SSD for /boot, / and SWAP. If yopu really want a raid1/mirror setup, you should buy one more 240 GB SSD, so you mirror between similar type and size disks.



Anyway .. if you take a look at your disks with gparted (or fdisk -l) you should see a huge unallocated amount of data on /dev/sda.






share|improve this answer


























  • It also looks like sda is a hardware raid mirror, in addition to THAT being a mirror of sdb.

    – Richie Frame
    Aug 7 at 4:14













12














12










12









It looks like that you have made raid1 (mirror) between partitions on your SSD and HDD. This is not best practice, since it more or less restricts performance to that of the slowest disk.



You can see that /boot, / and [ SWAP ] is defined on partitions on both /dev/sda and /dev/sdb.



sdb 8:16 1 238.4G 0 disk
├─sdb2 8:18 1 512M 0 part
│ └─md1 9:1 0 511.4M 0 raid1 /boot
├─sdb3 8:19 1 229.9G 0 part
│ └─md2 9:2 0 229.8G 0 raid1 /
└─sdb1 8:17 1 8G 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 8G 0 raid1 [SWAP]
sda 8:0 1 2.7T 0 disk
├─sda2 8:2 1 512M 0 part
│ └─md1 9:1 0 511.4M 0 raid1 /boot
├─sda3 8:3 1 229.9G 0 part
│ └─md2 9:2 0 229.8G 0 raid1 /
└─sda1 8:1 1 8G 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 8G 0 raid1 [SWAP]


I would recommend that you reinstall Ubuntu using only SSD for /boot, / and SWAP. If yopu really want a raid1/mirror setup, you should buy one more 240 GB SSD, so you mirror between similar type and size disks.



Anyway .. if you take a look at your disks with gparted (or fdisk -l) you should see a huge unallocated amount of data on /dev/sda.






share|improve this answer














It looks like that you have made raid1 (mirror) between partitions on your SSD and HDD. This is not best practice, since it more or less restricts performance to that of the slowest disk.



You can see that /boot, / and [ SWAP ] is defined on partitions on both /dev/sda and /dev/sdb.



sdb 8:16 1 238.4G 0 disk
├─sdb2 8:18 1 512M 0 part
│ └─md1 9:1 0 511.4M 0 raid1 /boot
├─sdb3 8:19 1 229.9G 0 part
│ └─md2 9:2 0 229.8G 0 raid1 /
└─sdb1 8:17 1 8G 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 8G 0 raid1 [SWAP]
sda 8:0 1 2.7T 0 disk
├─sda2 8:2 1 512M 0 part
│ └─md1 9:1 0 511.4M 0 raid1 /boot
├─sda3 8:3 1 229.9G 0 part
│ └─md2 9:2 0 229.8G 0 raid1 /
└─sda1 8:1 1 8G 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 8G 0 raid1 [SWAP]


I would recommend that you reinstall Ubuntu using only SSD for /boot, / and SWAP. If yopu really want a raid1/mirror setup, you should buy one more 240 GB SSD, so you mirror between similar type and size disks.



Anyway .. if you take a look at your disks with gparted (or fdisk -l) you should see a huge unallocated amount of data on /dev/sda.







share|improve this answer













share|improve this answer




share|improve this answer










answered Aug 6 at 13:55









Soren ASoren A

4,2781 gold badge12 silver badges28 bronze badges




4,2781 gold badge12 silver badges28 bronze badges















  • It also looks like sda is a hardware raid mirror, in addition to THAT being a mirror of sdb.

    – Richie Frame
    Aug 7 at 4:14

















  • It also looks like sda is a hardware raid mirror, in addition to THAT being a mirror of sdb.

    – Richie Frame
    Aug 7 at 4:14
















It also looks like sda is a hardware raid mirror, in addition to THAT being a mirror of sdb.

– Richie Frame
Aug 7 at 4:14





It also looks like sda is a hardware raid mirror, in addition to THAT being a mirror of sdb.

– Richie Frame
Aug 7 at 4:14













2


















The reason why your "3,0 TB" drive (sda) shows up as 2.7T is most likely due to different units being used.



The size is probably about 2.7 Tebibyte, which is approximately the same as 3.0 TB.



You can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tebibyte






share|improve this answer


























  • Thank you, but still, it seems like this I only have access to 230 GB, it would be nice if I could use the 2.7 TB

    – Lex Thoonen
    Aug 6 at 13:23






  • 1





    @LexThoonen You do have access to 240GB. Run dmesg | grep blocks in a terminal and you will see something like [ 3.989812] sd 4:0:0:0: [sde] 468862128 512-byte logical blocks: (240 GB/224 GiB) which shows that you are seeing the GiB of the drive and not the GB. The 3TB drive shows up like [ 3.462108] sd 10:0:0:0: [sdb] 732566645 4096-byte logical blocks: (3.00 TB/2.73 TiB)

    – Terrance
    Aug 6 at 13:44
















2


















The reason why your "3,0 TB" drive (sda) shows up as 2.7T is most likely due to different units being used.



The size is probably about 2.7 Tebibyte, which is approximately the same as 3.0 TB.



You can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tebibyte






share|improve this answer


























  • Thank you, but still, it seems like this I only have access to 230 GB, it would be nice if I could use the 2.7 TB

    – Lex Thoonen
    Aug 6 at 13:23






  • 1





    @LexThoonen You do have access to 240GB. Run dmesg | grep blocks in a terminal and you will see something like [ 3.989812] sd 4:0:0:0: [sde] 468862128 512-byte logical blocks: (240 GB/224 GiB) which shows that you are seeing the GiB of the drive and not the GB. The 3TB drive shows up like [ 3.462108] sd 10:0:0:0: [sdb] 732566645 4096-byte logical blocks: (3.00 TB/2.73 TiB)

    – Terrance
    Aug 6 at 13:44














2














2










2









The reason why your "3,0 TB" drive (sda) shows up as 2.7T is most likely due to different units being used.



The size is probably about 2.7 Tebibyte, which is approximately the same as 3.0 TB.



You can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tebibyte






share|improve this answer














The reason why your "3,0 TB" drive (sda) shows up as 2.7T is most likely due to different units being used.



The size is probably about 2.7 Tebibyte, which is approximately the same as 3.0 TB.



You can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tebibyte







share|improve this answer













share|improve this answer




share|improve this answer










answered Aug 6 at 13:17









EliasElias

9426 silver badges20 bronze badges




9426 silver badges20 bronze badges















  • Thank you, but still, it seems like this I only have access to 230 GB, it would be nice if I could use the 2.7 TB

    – Lex Thoonen
    Aug 6 at 13:23






  • 1





    @LexThoonen You do have access to 240GB. Run dmesg | grep blocks in a terminal and you will see something like [ 3.989812] sd 4:0:0:0: [sde] 468862128 512-byte logical blocks: (240 GB/224 GiB) which shows that you are seeing the GiB of the drive and not the GB. The 3TB drive shows up like [ 3.462108] sd 10:0:0:0: [sdb] 732566645 4096-byte logical blocks: (3.00 TB/2.73 TiB)

    – Terrance
    Aug 6 at 13:44


















  • Thank you, but still, it seems like this I only have access to 230 GB, it would be nice if I could use the 2.7 TB

    – Lex Thoonen
    Aug 6 at 13:23






  • 1





    @LexThoonen You do have access to 240GB. Run dmesg | grep blocks in a terminal and you will see something like [ 3.989812] sd 4:0:0:0: [sde] 468862128 512-byte logical blocks: (240 GB/224 GiB) which shows that you are seeing the GiB of the drive and not the GB. The 3TB drive shows up like [ 3.462108] sd 10:0:0:0: [sdb] 732566645 4096-byte logical blocks: (3.00 TB/2.73 TiB)

    – Terrance
    Aug 6 at 13:44

















Thank you, but still, it seems like this I only have access to 230 GB, it would be nice if I could use the 2.7 TB

– Lex Thoonen
Aug 6 at 13:23





Thank you, but still, it seems like this I only have access to 230 GB, it would be nice if I could use the 2.7 TB

– Lex Thoonen
Aug 6 at 13:23




1




1





@LexThoonen You do have access to 240GB. Run dmesg | grep blocks in a terminal and you will see something like [ 3.989812] sd 4:0:0:0: [sde] 468862128 512-byte logical blocks: (240 GB/224 GiB) which shows that you are seeing the GiB of the drive and not the GB. The 3TB drive shows up like [ 3.462108] sd 10:0:0:0: [sdb] 732566645 4096-byte logical blocks: (3.00 TB/2.73 TiB)

– Terrance
Aug 6 at 13:44






@LexThoonen You do have access to 240GB. Run dmesg | grep blocks in a terminal and you will see something like [ 3.989812] sd 4:0:0:0: [sde] 468862128 512-byte logical blocks: (240 GB/224 GiB) which shows that you are seeing the GiB of the drive and not the GB. The 3TB drive shows up like [ 3.462108] sd 10:0:0:0: [sdb] 732566645 4096-byte logical blocks: (3.00 TB/2.73 TiB)

– Terrance
Aug 6 at 13:44












2


















lsblk shows all disk partitions, while df -lh only shows your mounted partitions.






share|improve this answer























  • 1





    Don't do that .. sda2 seems to be a part of a raid1 (mirror) ...

    – Soren A
    Aug 6 at 13:45











  • You are right. I removed the example.

    – user3140225
    Aug 6 at 13:47















2


















lsblk shows all disk partitions, while df -lh only shows your mounted partitions.






share|improve this answer























  • 1





    Don't do that .. sda2 seems to be a part of a raid1 (mirror) ...

    – Soren A
    Aug 6 at 13:45











  • You are right. I removed the example.

    – user3140225
    Aug 6 at 13:47













2














2










2









lsblk shows all disk partitions, while df -lh only shows your mounted partitions.






share|improve this answer
















lsblk shows all disk partitions, while df -lh only shows your mounted partitions.







share|improve this answer















share|improve this answer




share|improve this answer








edited Aug 6 at 13:47

























answered Aug 6 at 13:18









user3140225user3140225

2,5074 gold badges9 silver badges24 bronze badges




2,5074 gold badges9 silver badges24 bronze badges










  • 1





    Don't do that .. sda2 seems to be a part of a raid1 (mirror) ...

    – Soren A
    Aug 6 at 13:45











  • You are right. I removed the example.

    – user3140225
    Aug 6 at 13:47












  • 1





    Don't do that .. sda2 seems to be a part of a raid1 (mirror) ...

    – Soren A
    Aug 6 at 13:45











  • You are right. I removed the example.

    – user3140225
    Aug 6 at 13:47







1




1





Don't do that .. sda2 seems to be a part of a raid1 (mirror) ...

– Soren A
Aug 6 at 13:45





Don't do that .. sda2 seems to be a part of a raid1 (mirror) ...

– Soren A
Aug 6 at 13:45













You are right. I removed the example.

– user3140225
Aug 6 at 13:47





You are right. I removed the example.

– user3140225
Aug 6 at 13:47


















draft saved

draft discarded















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Ask Ubuntu!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f1163809%2fubuntu-show-wrong-disk-sizes-how-to-solve-it%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown









Popular posts from this blog

Distance measures on a map of a game The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are Inmin distance in a graphShortest distance path on contour plotHow to plot a tilted map?Finding points outside of a diskDelaunay link distanceAnnulus from GeoDisks: drawing a ring on a mapNegative Correlation DistanceFind distance along a path (GPS coordinates)Finding position at given distance in a GeoPathMathematics behind distance estimation using camera

How to get a smooth, uniform ParametricPlot of a 2D Region?How to plot a complicated Region?How to exclude a region from ParametricPlotHow discretize a region placing vertices on a specific non-uniform gridHow to transform a Plot or a ParametricPlot into a RegionHow can I get a smooth plot of a bounded region?Smooth ParametricPlot3D with RegionFunction?Smooth border of a region ParametricPlotSmooth region boundarySmooth region plot from list of pointsGet minimum y of a certain x in a region

Genealogie vun de Merowenger Vum Merowech bis zum Chilperich I. | Navigatiounsmenü