Hey /g/ I've got a software raid 10 array, 4x3TB, and can

What type raid is it?

>>61213627
raid10

>>61213630
Then it makes sense right? Change your raid type to something else

>>61213644
raid10 should have half capacity, not one quarter, unless im mistaken.

>>61213652
I'm just looked at your array size and used dev size and that makes sense for raid 10 as you said.
Are you certain your array disks are all properly attached and your have ran the necessary commands to grow your array to its max size

>>61213676
Its the first time I've used raid, so I guess I can't be certain.

I've looked everything over though. Every type of command I can use to query the size always says 6TB, with 3 used. When I ran mdadm -D on the array, this is the output.

        Version : 1.2
  Creation Time : Tue Feb 17 15:25:08 2015
     Raid Level : raid10
     Array Size : 5860528128 (5589.04 GiB 6001.18 GB)
  Used Dev Size : 2930264064 (2794.52 GiB 3000.59 GB)
   Raid Devices : 4
  Total Devices : 4
    Persistence : Superblock is persistent

  Intent Bitmap : Internal

    Update Time : Mon May 30 02:33:38 2016
          State : active
 Active Devices : 4
Working Devices : 4
 Failed Devices : 0
  Spare Devices : 0

         Layout : near=2
     Chunk Size : 512K

           Name : ipfire:0  (local to host ipfire)
           UUID : c30fa4ea:b21f58b1:c3edf83e:be731925
         Events : 1846

    Number   Major   Minor   RaidDevice State
       0       8        1        0      active sync set-A   /dev/sda1
       1       8       17        1      active sync set-B   /dev/sdb1
       2       8       33        2      active sync set-A   /dev/sdc1
       3       8       49        3      active sync set-B   /dev/sdd1

I've never added/removed any drives and none have failed. There are no bad blocks (according to mdadm). Not sure what else there is to do.

>>61213696
Have you tried growing the array?
Also can you check that there's no operation going on your array right now?
I don't know what else if you don't have any data on it try to just destroy it and create a new one.

>>61213746
>Have you tried growing the array?
I did but that was about a year ago, and may have done it incorrectly.

>Also can you check that there's no operation going on your array right now?
Not sure how, or if its possible. I'll investigate this, but its doubtful.

>I don't know what else if you don't have any data on it try to just destroy it and create a new one.
Yeah this is looking like the best bet. Its just going to be a pain to find 3TB spare capacity, do the transfers, etc. Especially since the only way to test it seems to be to fill it with another 3+ TB.

Since it seems unlikely I'll get a fix to this, I'm considering making it a raid5 array instead.

Yes/no? Writing to it is rare with respect to reads.

>>61213594
install Windows

you did write the filesystem to the pseudo device and not just one of the disks, right?