On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Gordon Ross wrote:
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Richard Elling
> wrote:
>> On May 2, 2012, at 12:25 AM, Mark wrote:
>>
>>> There are two issues.
>>>
>>> The first is correct partition alignment, the second ashift value.
>>>
>>> In "theory", I haven't tested th
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012, Enrico wrote:
thank you Andy for this info
let us know your experience when you'll setup-up the disks
I didn't have any problems at all when I did this. I added the three 4 TB
disks to the system alongside the 250 GB disk it was supplied with and
booted OI 151a off a USB
On 3/05/2012 7:07 a.m., Gordon Ross wrote:
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Richard Elling
wrote:
On May 2, 2012, at 12:25 AM, Mark wrote:
There are two issues.
The first is correct partition alignment, the second ashift value.
In "theory", I haven't tested this yet, manually creating the s
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Richard Elling
wrote:
> On May 2, 2012, at 12:25 AM, Mark wrote:
>
>> There are two issues.
>>
>> The first is correct partition alignment, the second ashift value.
>>
>> In "theory", I haven't tested this yet, manually creating the slices with a
>> start position
On May 2, 2012, at 12:25 AM, Mark wrote:
> There are two issues.
>
> The first is correct partition alignment, the second ashift value.
>
> In "theory", I haven't tested this yet, manually creating the slices with a
> start position to sector 64 and using slices instead of whole disks for the
There are two issues.
The first is correct partition alignment, the second ashift value.
In "theory", I haven't tested this yet, manually creating the slices
with a start position to sector 64 and using slices instead of whole
disks for the zpool devices, and creating with an ashift of 12 may
I'm building a storage server with Dell MD1000 DAS and I just bought 30
drives with 4K sectors.
One of the reasons I selected the "new" 4K sector is so I can easily find
replacement drives 2-3 years from now when they start failing. Looks like
this was a huge mistake.
I'm fine if the drives repor
On Apr 29, 2012, at 7:38 PM, Gordon Ross wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 8:46 PM, Richard Elling
> wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 29, 2012, at 11:45 AM, George Wilson wrote:
> [...]
>>>
>>> Speaking of 4K sectors, I've taken a slightly different approach that fixes
>>> this outside of ZFS. The idea is t
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 8:46 PM, Richard Elling
wrote:
>
> On Apr 29, 2012, at 11:45 AM, George Wilson wrote:
[...]
>>
>> Speaking of 4K sectors, I've taken a slightly different approach that fixes
>> this outside of ZFS. The idea is to allow sd to override the
>> physical-block-size which ZFS w
On Apr 29, 2012, at 11:45 AM, George Wilson wrote:
>
> On Apr 29, 2012, at 1:28 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
>
Also, I posted a bug report for it here
https://www.illumos.org/issues/2663
>>>
>>> Thanks :-). We can now track the progress of the OI-specific
>>> discussion about this
On Apr 29, 2012, at 2:53 PM, Gary Mills wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 02:45:05PM -0400, George Wilson wrote:
>> On Apr 29, 2012, at 1:28 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
>>
> Also, I posted a bug report for it here
> https://www.illumos.org/issues/2663
>>>
>>> Seems the old post about
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 02:45:05PM -0400, George Wilson wrote:
> On Apr 29, 2012, at 1:28 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
>
> >>> Also, I posted a bug report for it here
> >>> https://www.illumos.org/issues/2663
> >
> > Seems the old post about the initial patch is here
> > https://www.illumos.or
On Apr 29, 2012, at 1:28 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
>>> Also, I posted a bug report for it here
>>> https://www.illumos.org/issues/2663
>>
>> Thanks :-). We can now track the progress of the OI-specific
>> discussion about this issue.
>
> Seems the old post about the initial patch is here
> > Also, I posted a bug report for it here
> > https://www.illumos.org/issues/2663
>
> Thanks :-). We can now track the progress of the OI-specific
> discussion about this issue.
Seems the old post about the initial patch is here
https://www.illumos.org/issues/453
After som discussion on #open
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
wrote:
>> > The patch allowing this option was, for various reasons, rejected,
>> > and no such option currently exists.
>>
>> Are you able to forward a link to the reasons?
>>
>> I'm asking because were they technical (i.e. something breaks),
> >> Finally, it looks like OI has some support for 4k sector disks:
> >>
> >> http://wiki.openindiana.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=4883847
> >>
> >> and ZFS pools can be created with the 'zpool create block-size 4096
> >> ...'
> >> option.
> >
> > The patch allowing this option was, for variou
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
wrote:
>> Finally, it looks like OI has some support for 4k sector disks:
>>
>> http://wiki.openindiana.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=4883847
>>
>> and ZFS pools can be created with the 'zpool create block-size 4096
>> ...'
>> option.
>
> T
> As for using Advanced Format disks with 4K sectors in ZFS pools, the
> worst
> case scenario would be that these disks can be used in a
> backwards-compatible legacy 512 byte sector format but with slower r/w
> performance. Also, Hitachi provide a Windows utility to re-align 4k
> sectors on their
thank you Andy for this info
let us know your experience when you'll setup-up the disks
On 04/29/2012 09:24 AM, andy thomas wrote:
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012, Enrico wrote:
did a little research, just because i'm curious about this, my storage needs
are much lower :)
they say
(http://forums.overcloc
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012, Enrico wrote:
did a little research, just because i'm curious about this, my storage needs
are much lower :)
they say
(http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showpost.php?p=13963218&postcount=4727)
that SB820M south-bridge on n40l has a limit of 3.2tb for hdd capacity. but
t
did a little research, just because i'm curious about this, my storage needs are
much lower :)
they say
(http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showpost.php?p=13963218&postcount=4727) that
SB820M south-bridge on n40l has a limit of 3.2tb for hdd capacity. but there are
no such details on the offic
Hi roy,
yes, right, it was just to tell Andy what I've tested with this hp system and
OI. i think there are many people who have written in detail their experience
about supported hdd sizes in forums easily reachable just by googling n40l. let
me also correct what i've written before: the adapt
It probably won't help much. Any SATA controller should recognize the 4TB
drives, and the problem with the drives lying about sector sizes won't be any
better whatever controller you use.
roy
- Opprinnelig melding -
> maybe this might help:
> http://www.adaptec.com/en-us/products/contro
maybe this might help:
http://www.adaptec.com/en-us/products/controllers/hardware/sas/entry/asc-1045/
it is recognized on a n40l and it is supported by the si3124 driver
On 04/28/2012 09:54 AM, andy thomas wrote:
For some time now I've successfully been using ZFS RAIDz pools made up of 3 x 1
TB
> > For some time now I've successfully been using ZFS RAIDz pools made
> > up of 3 x 1
> > TB or 3 x 2 TB Western Digital Caviar Black disks in a HP
> > MicroServer N36L
> > running OI 148 or 151. I'm now thinking of using the newer HP N40L
> > microserver
> > with 3 x 4 TB disks (Hitachi DeskStar
i have been using oi-151a1 on hp n40L for 6 months without problems. my pool is
smaller than yours and i do not have 4k disks.
if you look at the quick specs of the n40l:
Maximum internal SATA storage capacity of up to 8.0TB (4 x 2TB 3.5" SATA drives)
2TB 3G SATA 7.2K, Up to 4, SATA controller
For some time now I've successfully been using ZFS RAIDz pools made up of
3 x 1 TB or 3 x 2 TB Western Digital Caviar Black disks in a HP
MicroServer N36L running OI 148 or 151. I'm now thinking of using the
newer HP N40L microserver with 3 x 4 TB disks (Hitachi DeskStart 7K4000)
which have 409
27 matches
Mail list logo
