3 Replies Latest reply on Oct 3, 2009 11:44 PM by jawz101

    Raid 1 not showing correct volume size.

    waky

      My computer was manufactured in 2006 and has Intel matrix storage manager v.5.1.  Original configuration had (2) 160GB drives with Raid 1 mirror.  One drive failed about a year ago and was replaced with a 320GB drive.  Raid 1 was reconfigured and since one of the lower volume drives was still utilized, the total volume size was 160GB.  A few days ago the other (original) 160GB drive failed and was replaced with a new 320GB drive, identical to the other 320GB drive.  Raid 1 was reconfigured again and now utilizing (2) 320GB drives, however now volume size total still shows as 160GB not 320GB.  Is there a way to re-create Raid 1 that will increase the volume size to 320GB?

        • 1. Re: Raid 1 not showing correct volume size.
          PeterUK

          Is there a way to re-create Raid 1 that will increase the volume size to 320GB?

           

          Yes re-create it as in delete the array and start over.

           

          Capacity Expansion is another way but only on newer chips.

          1 of 1 people found this helpful
          • 2. Re: Raid 1 not showing correct volume size.
            waky

            Thank you.  I tried deleting the ARRAY through Intel matrix storage console and a message window pops up which states, " This is a system volume that cannot be deleted".  And I've tried "creating raid volume from existing hard drive" and another window pops up, "there are not enough non-raid drives to create a volume from an existing drive".  Any other options without completely losing all data on the drives?

             

            Message was edited by: waky

            • 3. Re: Raid 1 not showing correct volume size.
              jawz101

              I clicked on this 'related post' after finally fixing my exact same issue with a RAID5 array.  Something very peculiar must be happening when these Intel controllers.  It likes to halve sizes.

              Anyways, my post was here: http://communities.intel.com/message/67918#67918

               

              I don't know what your workstation is running & I'd like to offer 2 scenarios:

              1) if this is a business class server performing a very important function it's one thing

              2) if this is a workstation or a file server it's another

               

              The reason being is that a file server or workstation only has data that you'd lose if you deleted & recreated it.  Surely you have your application cd's and whatnot.


              A database server, web server, etc. has applications that require more configurations that would be prohibitive to have a lot of downtime.

               

              In the workstation, file server role I'd simply copy my important data off, delete & recreate the drive group, reinstall the OS and dump the data back on.  No brainer & not much downtime.

               

              If this is an application server I'd want to know more to see how to minimize the downtime while reapplying it's roles.  If it's anything like the situation in my post (see the attached screenshot of that thread) you're looking at a free space gap that oddly happened when you created the array.  My situation was different in that the drive group causing troubles held data rather than the operating system (that was drive group 0) so I feel it's something where I'd want to know what the purpose of the computer is to see how much downtime you'd have bringing the computer down for maintenance.

               

              Bottom line, you can do all of this with no data loss if you back up first.

              Acronis or another imaging product may make it even more seemless.  I don't know if they let you image to a larger disk size, though, and expand the image of the smaller drive to a larger drive size.  I'm sure their product does since it costs so darn much.

               

              But, first things first in determining if it's just 'data' or applications that would cause more problems having to reinstall/reconfigure