Find the answer to your Linux question:
Results 1 to 3 of 3
I have recently acquired a Micronet PlatinumRAID enclosure and stuffed it with 5x 750GB SATA drives. The enclosure recognized the drives and I was able to set up a single ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #1
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2

    Problem with multiTB firewire disk under CentOS5


    I have recently acquired a Micronet PlatinumRAID enclosure and stuffed it with 5x 750GB SATA drives. The enclosure recognized the drives and I was able to set up a single 3TB RAID5 array.

    But when I initialize the volume group, currently a single 1.5TB volume group without >2TB support but I would prefer to use a single 3TB volume group if at all possible, and attach the unit to my server via firewire, CentOS5 (kernel: 2.6.18-53.1.14.el5.centos.plus #1 SMP) only recognizes the device as being 800976MBs in size.

    I am relatively new to managing storage under Linux. And am not sure if this is a limitation of the kernel, the ieee1394 module, or just bad drive geometry. If anyone could give me any pointers I would appreciate it.

    As a work around I could probably create 4x 750GB volume groups and then use lvm to create a single large logical volume, but that seems reckless and likely to add a level of complexity, and there for another point of failure, to the system that I don't want to deal with.

    I have contacted Micronet, but they do not offer any Linux support for this product.

    Here is what I can find in the dmesg output that appears related to this device:
    -trimmed-
    ieee1394: Initialized config rom entry `ip1394'
    -trimmed-
    ohci1394: fw-host0: OHCI-1394 1.1 (PCI): IRQ=[169] MMIO=[efaef800-efaeffff] Max Packet=[2048] IR/IT contexts=[4/8]
    -trimmed-
    sd 0:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg0 type 0
    ieee1394: Node added: ID:BUS[0-00:1023] GUID[0010100345000286]
    ieee1394: Host added: ID:BUS[0-01:1023] GUID[0011066645556eaa]
    ieee1394: sbp2: Driver forced to serialize I/O (serialize_io=1)
    ieee1394: sbp2: Try serialize_io=0 for better performance
    scsi2 : SBP-2 IEEE-1394
    ieee1394: sbp2: Workarounds for node 0-00:1023: 0x2 (firmware_revision 0x000241,
    vendor_id 0x001010, model_id 0x000000)
    ieee1394: sbp2: Logged into SBP-2 device
    ieee1394: Node 0-00:1023: Max speed [S400] - Max payload [2048]
    Vendor: PI-041 Model: 1394B/USB2 Drive Rev: 2.41
    Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 00
    SCSI device sdb: 1564405760 512-byte hdwr sectors (800976 MB)
    sdb: Write Protect is off
    sdb: Mode Sense: 86 0b 00 02
    sdb: missing header in MODE_SENSE response
    SCSI device sdb: drive cache: write back
    SCSI device sdb: 1564405760 512-byte hdwr sectors (800976 MB)
    sdb: Write Protect is off
    sdb: Mode Sense: 86 0b 00 02
    sdb: missing header in MODE_SENSE response
    SCSI device sdb: drive cache: write back
    sdb: unknown partition table
    sd 2:0:0:0: Attached scsi disk sdb
    sd 2:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg1 type 0
    -trimmed-

  2. #2
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2

    Update: Found work around

    So apparently the initialization routine, part of the firmware for the RAID enclosure sets the geometry strangely (-5415456 cylinders/4 heads/63 sectors). I was able to work around the problem by attaching the device to my desktop, in this case a Mac Mini which recognized the full volume automatically, and was then able to create a new fat32 partition. After that I was able to reconnect the enclosure to my Linux server, which magically recognized the corrected drive geometry (182401 cylinders/255 heads/63 sectors), and reformat the volume as an ext3 filesystem. At last I can mount the full 1.5TB partition. Now I am reinitializing the unit with a single 3TB volume group with >2TB support enabled. I will post an update in a couple of days with my success/failure.

  3. #3
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    16
    So let me ask you how everything worked out?

    What was the final solution to the problem?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •