You were absolutely right, it was a RAID 5 setup that I had totally overlooked. Thank you! All better now.
You are totally right, it was RAID 5 setup in the BIOS. Thanks for your help.
Oh duh, that makes sense. I didn't see any software RAID setup but wasn't looking for it specifically in the BIOS. Hardware RAID would also make sense. Thank you for the tips!
I recently bought a used blade server on the cheap (thank you LabGopher) to upgrade my home set-up and got one in pretty good shape. This is my first foray into blade servers and as I'm in the process of setting it up I'm running into some questions where I'm in a bit over my head trying to figure out.
The server has 4 x 3 TB SAS SSDs. I've installed Ubuntu Server 22.04 just fine. However these four disks show up as a single disk with all the partitions on it. fdisk and similar tools all just show a single sda drive. Furthermore, the total size of that combined disk is shown as 8.4 TB instead of the expected 12 TB.
Clearly I'm running into the 2.1 TB disk formatting limit on each of the four drives independently, but I'm not sure how to proceed. Ubuntu can't even see the missing space. My questions are:
-
How do I recover my missing 3.6 TB? If I expand the partition to include all free space I just get the 8.4 TB, so it seems like it's a deeper limitation than just the OS, which I don't know how to handle.
-
How do I get the drives to be individually visible? If I want to set up software RAID I need to have multiple devices accessible, instead of just this conglomerate drive.
Okay, I totally agree with your argument here but
...I don't want to get into the mess of the government defining what is or isn't against the law.
is an objectively funny statement. Who else do you think generally does this?
You can in Vermont and Hawaii, where billboards are illegal.
Is there a fediverse nottheonion out there?
Today's technology? We've had plaster casts for millennia. Story time!
The Acropolis Museum in Athens, Greece has replicas of the marbles on display on the second floor, as it's all they have. When the Acropolis Museum was being constructed, the British Museum sent two sets of casts for them to use (refusing once again to return the originals). The first was a set of basically placeholder casts that were made quickly so that the folks building the Acropolis Museum could plan out the space / measure them for mounting, etc. They're ugly, lack a bunch of detail and have visible seams where the casts were put together. Later, they sent a second set that were much more carefully done and are, in reality, very nice. They show a lot of detail and are, aside from the fact that they're made of plaster, nearly indistinguishable from the original marbles. Now, which set do you think the Greeks elected to hang in the museum?
If you go visit the Acropolis Museum today, you can get a guided tour where the guide will take you up to the second floor, show you these awful, sloppily done plaster casts and loudly lament how the British Museum won't return the originals and only sent them these shitty casts which they have no choice but to hang here since they have nothing else to use and isn't it just insulting how terrible they are and how little the British care?
It's honestly a little hilarious. The British Museum needs to return the Parthenon Marbles and display the nice casts themselves for many reasons but "make the Acropolis Museum more than just the Monument to Greek Bitterness" is somewhere on that list.
There's a typo in the url. If you look you'll find an extra ;// in there.
Hey @gnarly your link is borked.