Re: 283GB Drives in a set of 139GB Disks.. -- MIDRANGE-L

× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.

Subject: Re: 283GB Drives in a set of 139GB Disks..
From: DrFranken <midrange@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 08:51:32 -0400
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

Agreed that on other platforms this is basically normal and expected behavior. On IBM i it did not used to be possible and I 'assumed' it still was not. Perhaps this changed with the move to SAS??

- Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis

www.frankeni.com
www.iDevCloud.com
www.iInTheCloud.com

On 4/27/2014 5:44 AM, Wilson Jonathan wrote:

That's fairly standard for raid, the device with the least amount of
storage is the maximum unit size of all members of the raid array.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.