4

Here the screenshots I think they explains everything

The disks are advertised as 1 TB and the real size of the disks are 931.5 GB

I have installed Windows Server without RAID setup for experimentation. Both disks are fully working with no non-useable sectors and all 931 GB is available to use.

enter image description here

enter image description here

Edit I have found this link

https://support.lenovo.com/tr/en/solutions/ht507601-intelr-rapid-storage-technology-enterprises-default-volume-size-is-not-maximum-size-lenovo-thinkserver

I also see 95% array allocation after deleting RAID and trying to compose again

enter image description here

Dave M
  • 13,138
  • 25
  • 36
  • 47
Furkan Gözükara
  • 683
  • 5
  • 10
  • 23
  • Are you sure you want to use SSDs in an hardware RAID? As far as I know Intel hardware raid does not support TRIM so your SSDs will degrade faster and will operate slower that a single drive: https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/000129304/solid-state-drives-in-irst-raid-1-may-have-degraded-performance?lang=en – Robert Jun 03 '21 at 16:40
  • 1)Just to confirm you are wondering why you can only use 884.9GB instead of 931.5GB? 2)I see the Lenovo link indicates it uses 5% for fault tolerance, but you're wondering why that is needed since RAID1 is a mirrored set? 3)In your last picture Intel storage SW has a question mark next to 95% did you click that? – gregg Jun 04 '21 at 13:34
  • 1
    @Robert [your link](https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/000129304/solid-state-drives-in-irst-raid-1-may-have-degraded-performance?lang=en) has a NOTE at the bottom: _TRIM is supported in IRST ... in RAID 1 in IRST for Enterprise..._. OP's pictures indicate he is running the enterprise version so should be good. Good catch though, if I were the OP I'd be sure to update BIOS and/or Intel Storage FW/driver just to be safe – gregg Jun 04 '21 at 13:55
  • 1
    Intel says: “Unless specifically selected, the default volume capacity will be 95% of the available space. This is to support disk coercion.” – Maybe this can be changed somehow? Try the Advanced tab in the Windows software. – Daniel B Jun 04 '21 at 15:47

5 Answers5

1

A pure speculation, based on personal experience with similar software (I avoid using RST for a lot of reasons):

931.5 * 1000 * 1000 / 1024 / 1024 = 888.35 + some rounding errors

Looks like the old 1000 vs 1024 dualism in hard disk volume labels.

The usual IT thinks that 1k = 1024 and 1M = 1048576 (1024 * 1024). 1024 is a good binary number, it looks like 1000000000 in binary and is handy for IT calculations.

Disk manufacturers prefer 1k = 1000 and 1M = 1000000 (exactly like the case is for SI units). This gives bigger numbers on the label and bigger numbers sell.

When one wants to be sure to imply 1024 multipliers, Ki, Mi and Gi abbreviations shoild be used (usually pronounced kibi-, mibi- and gibi-).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte#Multiple-byte_units


In your particular case:

The disks are advertized as 931GB.

The "SELECT DISKS" menu shows the size in manufacturer units for the sake of correspondence between the label and the number on the screen.

The "CREATE VOLUME" menu shows "IT units", because... whatever the designer of this software package imagined.

The real overhead of the RAID 1 volume (spare for the half used for redundancy) is like 512 or 1024 (or probably even 4096 for the sake of the advanced format) bytes and is completely negligible (and the numbers above are not accurate enough to show a difference that small anyway).

fraxinus
  • 1,141
  • 5
  • 6
  • The disks are advertised as 960 GB and 931 GB is the real size. – Furkan Gözükara Jun 02 '21 at 10:09
  • it gets even uglier, then. Add another 1000/1024 for the label vs the first screen – fraxinus Jun 02 '21 at 10:35
  • 1
    when I don't do raid 1, I am able to use 931.5 GB. I am also able to set manually 931.5 GB but I haven't tried yet – Furkan Gözükara Jun 02 '21 at 11:19
  • Also, avoid using Intel "Rapid Storage Technology", this is known as Fake RAID. You'd be better with LVM anyway: Less issues, more compatible and same or even better functionality. – X.LINK Jun 02 '21 at 14:58
  • @X.LINK why it is fake raid? i had failed disks in the past and had 0 data loss with raid 1 – Furkan Gözükara Jun 02 '21 at 17:17
  • @MonsterMMORPG 931 in what units? :) – fraxinus Jun 02 '21 at 17:47
  • 2
    @X.LINK there is no "fake" and "genuine" RAID. There are RAID implementations in dedicated OS driver (mdraid and windows software RAID), in the storage driver (RST and few others) or in the storage controller firmware (LSI, PERC and friends). All of them work... unless it comes to error handling and compatibility. Only the OS dedicated RAID drivers have sane and reproducible error handling. – fraxinus Jun 02 '21 at 17:58
  • 931 GB as units – Furkan Gözükara Jun 02 '21 at 18:35
  • @fraxinus : https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/RAID#Implementation – X.LINK Jun 02 '21 at 19:32
  • 1
    @X.LINK yes, I know what this pejorative term is used for. It is by no means descriptive and not really popular. – fraxinus Jun 02 '21 at 20:38
  • @MonsterMMORPG I asked, in what measurement units. Is it 931 * 1000 * 1000 * 1000 bytes or 931 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024 bytes? – fraxinus Jun 02 '21 at 20:40
  • fraxinus i think you have no idea what you are talking about. the disk is advertised as 1 TB which is bytes. so it becomes 1,000,000,000,000 / 1024 / 1024 / 1024 = 931 GB – Furkan Gözükara Jun 02 '21 at 20:48
  • @MonsterMMORPG OK, then it looks like you know the answer of your question in the first place. – fraxinus Jun 02 '21 at 20:54
1

The default size of 884.9GB is exactly 95% of the smallest disk, which is 931.5GB. You can manually change this value to the full 931.5GB if you wish to do so.

This feature is documented at https://www.intel.com/content/dam/support/us/en/documents/ssdc/ssd-software/RSTe_NVMeProduct%20Spec.pdf. Its purpose is to protect against NVMe of different sizes. Your current disks are 931.5GB but the next one you buy (if it is a different vendor) could be 931.4GB. A smaller disk cannot be used to replace a bigger one in a RAID1 array. Rounding down the size to 95% gives you a bit of leeway there, but you are free to make it use 100% the space.

To quote the relevant section 2.6.3 of the document above:

Disk Coercion

The Intel RSTe NVMe will provide support for Disk Coercion. When a RAID volume is created, this feature will analyze the physical disks and will automatically adjust (round down) the capacity of the disk(s) to 95% of the smallest physical disk. This allows for the variances in the physical disk capacities from different vendors.

chutz
  • 560
  • 4
  • 11
  • @monstermmorpg Thanks for accepting the answer but you may also want to check https://serverfault.com/a/1066028/114782 for consistency. – chutz Jun 25 '21 at 02:46
0

To summarise, pardon my crude understanding, from what I read about this odd drive space left regarding SSD lifespan.

I believe this is something called SSD OVER PROVISIONING to allow for even wear levelling. This necessary allocated space is what manufacturers allocate to allow for a decent life expectancy on your SSD drive before it wears out.

EVEN WEAR LEVELLING is a drive process that moves around data around different areas your SSD evenly so you're not always read/writing to the same cell over and over again till it dies a lot sooner.

To allow for this your drive actually needs more free space to move data around. So the less space you have the more likely the same cells are having read/write cycles over and over again hence wearing it out. So it is actually good practise to have some slack space for your drive, i.e. 10% free

EXAMPLE:

120GB 90% full 1000 P/E

Assume 20gb written a day

1000 P/E cycles for 12GB of free space would be reached in 600days

But at 80% full (24gb free) the SSD would last 1200 days

Some SSD manufacturers lock this over provisioning space, but I believe Samsung you can actually use Samsung Magician to modify the Over Provisioning space.

Anyhow I hope that helps. It's one of those "it's a feature, not a fault" scenarios.

I like how this guy explains it better for your reference.

Sam Wheel
  • 23
  • 10
0

All the answers given right now are right. Space declared could be calculated with 1000 base instead of 1024. Also SSD could reserve space.

But I think case in place is just a standard FakeRaid matter.

FakeRaid is a Software Raid, is not an hardware RAID. That means that your RAID isn't managed by a specific hardware or controller but, in this case, by your CPU/chipset (same as AMD Raidxpert technology).

This kind of raid is less expensive at production level, but generates 2 "problems":

  1. You could be not able to see content of disks except with same FAKERaid technology.
  2. They reserve a small space on disk depending on RAID type, usually 10~5% for RAID1. This space usually contains hashes (CRC) for consistency checks (This is a mere assumption since technologies are proprietary)
  • 1. The question clearly states that _"The disks are advertised as 1 TB and the real size of the disks are 931.5 GB"_. So the 931 GB number already accounts for the base-1000-vs-1024 calculation. 2. Software RAID and "fake" RAID are not the same thing. 3. Why do you think software RAID and "fake" RAID are not "real"? How are they less "real" than hardware RAID? Btw, your problem #1 applies to hardware RAID as well. – gronostaj Jun 07 '21 at 08:34
  • 1. Question should be corrected, you can clearly see by his comments and other replies, that true problem is him making RAID1. As I told at beginning of my answer other answers are right about declared space calculations. – ExtremeMultiman Jun 07 '21 at 09:27
  • 2-3. I simply use definitions, not make them. If you'd google _FakeRaid_ you'll see that is commonly referred name for software raid, cause that was once an actual technology name used on some old device to publicize specific software raid controllers. So _Fake_ **is not** an adjective meaning they are _not REAL_ but that is software emulated. That being told, there are many differences. For example, many hardware dedicated raid controller have internal space reserved for CRC, not on disks like in this case. That creates a problem of limited space depending on CRC reserved space. – ExtremeMultiman Jun 07 '21 at 09:32
  • That's your words: _"Software Raid, also commonly referred as FakeRaid, is not a real RAID system"_. If you think it's not accurate please consider correcting it. Regarding "fake" vs. software RAID, I've never seen these terms used interchangeably. Software RAID = OS level, hardware RAID = dedicated hardware, "fake" RAID = chipset level. Also see the discussion under fraxinus's answer. – gronostaj Jun 07 '21 at 09:43
  • You are right, I'm sorry, I noticed my mistake on my sentence and edited. I've seen discussion under fraxinus answer. But I think problems does not reside in definition but in history. FakeRaid is a software raid technology developed on linux, current chipsets level raid now apply same kind of technology, even if differently. [link](https://help.ubuntu.com/community/FakeRaidHowto) ps. I changed the link – ExtremeMultiman Jun 07 '21 at 09:50
  • The article you've linked makes a clear distinction between software RAID and "fake" RAID and describes them in line with my definitions: "fake RAID" is described as "hardware products" (literally the first sentence) that offer RAID-like features but require software drivers. The 2nd paragraph discusses differences between Linux software RAID and "fake" RAID and use cases for both. So my remark still stands: _"Software Raid, also commonly referred as FakeRaid"_ is incorrect. – gronostaj Jun 07 '21 at 12:06
  • Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/126168/discussion-between-extrememultiman-and-gronostaj). – ExtremeMultiman Jun 07 '21 at 12:08
-1

You are using software from 2013, where GB usually meant GiB.

So your 2013 software writes 931.5GB but is meaning 931.5GiB

931.5GiB = 953856 MiB = 976748544 KiB = 1000190509056 Bytes

1000190509056 Bytes are round about 1 TB.

paladin
  • 124
  • 3