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;
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
add a comment
|
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
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
add a comment
|
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
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
partitioning hard-drive raid
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
add a comment
|
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
add a comment
|
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
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.
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
add a comment
|
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
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. Rundmesg | grep blocksin 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 theGiBof the drive and not theGB. 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
add a comment
|
lsblk shows all disk partitions, while df -lh only shows your mounted partitions.
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
add a comment
|
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
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
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.
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
add a comment
|
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.
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
add a comment
|
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.
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.
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
add a comment
|
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
add a comment
|
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
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. Rundmesg | grep blocksin 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 theGiBof the drive and not theGB. 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
add a comment
|
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
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. Rundmesg | grep blocksin 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 theGiBof the drive and not theGB. 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
add a comment
|
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
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
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. Rundmesg | grep blocksin 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 theGiBof the drive and not theGB. 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
add a comment
|
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. Rundmesg | grep blocksin 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 theGiBof the drive and not theGB. 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
add a comment
|
lsblk shows all disk partitions, while df -lh only shows your mounted partitions.
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
add a comment
|
lsblk shows all disk partitions, while df -lh only shows your mounted partitions.
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
add a comment
|
lsblk shows all disk partitions, while df -lh only shows your mounted partitions.
lsblk shows all disk partitions, while df -lh only shows your mounted partitions.
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
add a comment
|
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
add a comment
|
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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