RAID-5 of 4x IBM IC35L073UCDY10 incompatible with SEAGATE ST373207LC

[John-Paul Stewart]

Hi,

I'm running a RAID-5 of 4x IBM IC35L073UCDY10 on an ICP Vortex GDT8514RZ
SCSI/RAID-Controller, firmware 2.44.02-RC7B (current). It is to be
expanded by 2 SEAGATE ST373207LC, but the expand command in the
controller's console fails with the message "no suitable disks found".
This seems to be due to a compatibility issue of the IBM drives. The IBM
support doesn't seem to be of much help - the firmware update (S29A)
they sent me made no difference.
If anyone has experience with expanding RAID arrays of IBM disks or
similar situations, please tell me...

Some RAID controllers simply refuse to work unless all drives are
identical brand and model. I don't think it's a compatability issue
with the IBM drives so much as it's an issue with the controller. Check
with the controller manufacturer for information; there's a chance they
might have a workaround (if this is indeed your problem).

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Victor_Matar=E9?=]

Hi,

I'm running a RAID-5 of 4x IBM IC35L073UCDY10 on an ICP Vortex GDT8514RZ
SCSI/RAID-Controller, firmware 2.44.02-RC7B (current). It is to be
expanded by 2 SEAGATE ST373207LC, but the expand command in the
controller's console fails with the message "no suitable disks found".
This seems to be due to a compatibility issue of the IBM drives. The IBM
support doesn't seem to be of much help - the firmware update (S29A)
they sent me made no difference.
If anyone has experience with expanding RAID arrays of IBM disks or
similar situations, please tell me...

thx in advance

--
Victor Mataré

* Server- & Network-Administration *

Lehrstuhl für Ingenieurgeologie und Hydrogeologie der RWTH-Aachen
Lochnerstr. 4-20
52064 Aachen
Germany

http://www.lih.rwth-aachen.de

Ph: +49-0241-80-97130
Fx: +49-0241-80-92280

 

[Victor Matare]

Some RAID controllers simply refuse to work unless all drives are
identical brand and model. I don't think it's a compatability issue
with the IBM drives so much as it's an issue with the controller. Check
with the controller manufacturer for information; there's a chance they
might have a workaround (if this is indeed your problem).

The controller definitely does support using different drives in a
single array. It even leaves a "tolerance gap" of about 10 MB of unused
space at the end of the disks to ensure that drives with a slightly
smaller capacity can still be added to the array. I'm pretty sure it's
an incompatibility issue with either the IBM- or the Seagate-disks.
If this can't be resolved, I'd appreciate some tips on how to find out
who (IBM, Seagate or maybe ICP Vortex) has been messing with the
standards there, in order to find someone to "blame" for this

thx4help,

--
Victor Mataré

* Server- & Network-Administration *

Lehrstuhl für Ingenieurgeologie und Hydrogeologie der RWTH-Aachen
Lochnerstr. 4-20
52064 Aachen
Germany

http://www.lih.rwth-aachen.de

Ph: +49-0241-80-97130
Fx: +49-0241-80-92280

 

[Victor Matare]

The controller definitely does support using different drives in a
single array. It even leaves a "tolerance gap" of about 10 MB of unused
space at the end of the disks to ensure that drives with a slightly
smaller capacity can still be added to the array. I'm pretty sure it's
an incompatibility issue with either the IBM- or the Seagate-disks.
If this can't be resolved, I'd appreciate some tips on how to find out
who (IBM, Seagate or maybe ICP Vortex) has been messing with the
standards there, in order to find someone to "blame" for this

thx4help,

Update:
The guy who told me about that "tolerance gap" was wrong. I called ICP
support and they said that if the disks being added are only a single
sector smaller, the controller won't accept them. This seems to be the
reason for my problem, as the Seagate drive are actually a few sectors
shorter than the IBM drives. Tonight I'm gonna rebuild the whole array
with slightly reduced sizes for the individual disks. If that doesn't
work out, I'll post another call for help

bye,

--
Victor Mataré

* Server- & Network-Administration *

Lehrstuhl für Ingenieurgeologie und Hydrogeologie der RWTH-Aachen
Lochnerstr. 4-20
52064 Aachen
Germany

http://www.lih.rwth-aachen.de

Ph: +49-0241-80-97130
Fx: +49-0241-80-92280

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Victor_Matar=E9?=]

The controller definitely does support using different drives in a
single array. It even leaves a "tolerance gap" of about 10 MB of unused
space at the end of the disks to ensure that drives with a slightly
smaller capacity can still be added to the array. I'm pretty sure it's
an incompatibility issue with either the IBM- or the Seagate-disks.
If this can't be resolved, I'd appreciate some tips on how to find out
who (IBM, Seagate or maybe ICP Vortex) has been messing with the
standards there, in order to find someone to "blame" for this

thx4help,

Update:
The guy who told me about that "tolerance gap" was wrong. I called ICP
support and they said that if the disks being added are only a single
sector smaller, the controller won't accept them. This seems to be the
reason for my problem, as the Seagate drive are actually a few sectors
shorter than the IBM drives. Tonight I'm gonna rebuild the whole array
with slightly reduced sizes for the individual disks. If that doesn't
work out, I'll post another call for help

bye,

--
Victor Mataré

* Server- & Network-Administration *

Lehrstuhl für Ingenieurgeologie und Hydrogeologie der RWTH-Aachen
Lochnerstr. 4-20
52064 Aachen
Germany

http://www.lih.rwth-aachen.de

Ph: +49-0241-80-97130
Fx: +49-0241-80-92280

 

[Kasper Dupont]

It even leaves a "tolerance gap" of about 10 MB of unused
space at the end of the disks to ensure that drives with a slightly
smaller capacity can still be added to the array.

But 10MB is not nearly enough. I have seen a difference
of about 3.6GB between two drives both sold as 160GB.

 

[Arno Wagner]

Update:
The guy who told me about that "tolerance gap" was wrong. I called ICP
support and they said that if the disks being added are only a single
sector smaller, the controller won't accept them. This seems to be the
reason for my problem, as the Seagate drive are actually a few sectors
shorter than the IBM drives. Tonight I'm gonna rebuild the whole array
with slightly reduced sizes for the individual disks. If that doesn't
work out, I'll post another call for help

Having at least one of the seagates in there when you rebuild should
reduce the size automatically.

Arno