Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 23 Nov 2004 23:32:33 +0100
From:      Dimitry Andric <>
To:        "Daniel Eriksson" <>
Cc:        =?ISO-8859-1?Q?'S=F8ren_Schmidt'?= <>
Subject:   Re: ataraid and 1TB+ storage?
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <!~!>
References:   <!~!>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 2004-11-23 at 22:43:41 Daniel Eriksson wrote:

> ad4: 190782MB <ST3200822A/3.01> [387621/16/63] at ata2-master UDMA100
> ad5: 190782MB <ST3200822A/3.01> [387621/16/63] at ata2-slave UDMA100
> ad6: 190782MB <ST3200822A/3.01> [387621/16/63] at ata3-master UDMA100
> ad7: 190782MB <ST3200822A/3.01> [387621/16/63] at ata3-slave UDMA100
> ad8: 190782MB <ST3200822A/3.01> [387621/16/63] at ata4-master UDMA100
> ad9: 190782MB <ST3200822A/3.01> [387621/16/63] at ata4-slave UDMA100
> ar0: 9007199253788533MB <ATA RAID0 array> [1499975777/255/63] status: REA=

This looks like a wraparound over 2^31 sectors, so the sector count
gets negative.  And then this is interpreted as a 64-bit unsigned:

(2^64 - (6*387621*16*63 - 2^31)) / 2 / 1024 =3D 9007199254644874 MB

Not exactly, but close enough to the reported 9007199253788533 MB, I
would think...  If anyone can explain the difference, please let us
know.  (I'm guessing that the LBA capacity of the individual drives is
a bit different from the 387621/16/63 geometry they're reporting.)

Anyway, this is probably some bug in the ataraid driver. :)

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>