As a home user, here are my thoughts.
WD = ignore (TLER issues, parking issues, etc)
I recently built up a server on Osol running Samsung 1.5TB drives. They are
"green", but don't seem to have the irritating "features" found on the WD
"green" drives. They are 5400RPM, but seem to transfer data
> "dd" == David Dyer-Bennet writes:
dd> Richard Elling said ZFS handles the 4k real 512byte fake
dd> drives okay now in default setups
There are two steps to handling it well. one is to align the start of
partitions to 4kB, and apparently on Solaris (thanks to all the
cumbersome par
> "ag" == Andrew Gabriel writes:
ag> Having now read a number of forums about these, there's a
ag> strong feeling WD screwed up by not providing a switch to
ag> disable pseudo 512b access so you can use the 4k native.
this reporting lie is no different from SSD's which have 2 - 8
> Hi all
>
> I just discovered WD Black drives are rumored not to
> be set to allow TLER.
Yep: http://opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messageID=501159#501159
> Enterprise drives will cost
> about 60% more, and on a large install, that means a
> lot of money...
True, sometimes more than twice
- Original Message -
> On Tue, October 5, 2010 17:20, Richard Elling wrote:
> > On Oct 5, 2010, at 2:06 PM, Michael DeMan wrote:
> >>
> >> On Oct 5, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
>
> >>> Well, here it's about 60% up and for 150 drives, that makes a wee
> >>> difference...
>
> > TLER (the ability of the drive to timeout a command)
>
> I went and got what detailed documentation I could on a couple of the
> Seagate drives last night, and I couldn't find anything on how they
> behaved in that sort of error cases. (I believe TLER is a WD-specific
> term, but I didn't
On Tue, October 5, 2010 16:47, casper@sun.com wrote:
>
>
>>My immediate reaction to this is "time to avoid WD drives for a while";
>>until things shake out and we know what's what reliably.
>>
>>But, um, what do we know about say the Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 ($70),
>>the SAMSUNG Spinpoint F3
On Tue, October 5, 2010 17:20, Richard Elling wrote:
> On Oct 5, 2010, at 2:06 PM, Michael DeMan wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 5, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
>>> Well, here it's about 60% up and for 150 drives, that makes a wee
>>> difference...
>> Understood on 1.6 times cost, especial
www.solarisinternals.com has always been a community. It never was hosted by
Sun, and it's not hosted by Oracle. True, many of the contributors were Sun
employees, but not so many remain at Oracle. If it's out if date, I suspect
that's because the original contributors are too busy doing other f
casper@sun.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:49 PM, wrote:
I'm not sure that that is correct; the drive works on naive clients but I
believe it can reveal its true colors.
The drive reports 512 byte sectors to all hosts. AFAIK there's no way
to make it report 4k sectors.
>On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:49 PM, wrote:
>> I'm not sure that that is correct; the drive works on naive clients but I
>> believe it can reveal its true colors.
>
>The drive reports 512 byte sectors to all hosts. AFAIK there's no way
>to make it report 4k sectors.
Too bad because it makes it le
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:49 PM, wrote:
> I'm not sure that that is correct; the drive works on naive clients but I
> believe it can reveal its true colors.
The drive reports 512 byte sectors to all hosts. AFAIK there's no way
to make it report 4k sectors.
-B
--
Brandon High : bh...@freaks.co
If you're spending upwards of $30,000 on a storage system, you probably
shouldn't skimp on the most important component. You might as well be
complaining that ECC ram costs more. Don't be ridiculous. For one, this is a
disk backup system, not a fileserver, and TLER is far from as critic al
Can you give us release numbers that confirm that this is 'automatic'. It is
my understanding that the last available public release of OpenSolaris does not
do this.
On Oct 5, 2010, at 8:52 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
> ZFS already aligns the beginning of data areas to 4KB offsets from the lab
>This would require a low-level re-format and would significantly
>reduce the available space if it was possible at all.
I don't think it is possible.
>> WD has a jumper,
>>but is there explicitly to work with WindowsXP, and is not a real way
>>to dumb down the drive to 512.
>
>All it does is
>Changing the sector size (if it's possible at all) would require a
>reformat of the drive.
The WD drives only support a 4K sector but they pretend to have 512byte
sectors. I don't think they need to format the drive when changing to 4K
sectors. A non-aligned write requires a read-modify-writ
ZFS already aligns the beginning of data areas to 4KB offsets from the label.
For modern OpenSolaris and Solaris implementations, the default starting
block for partitions is also aligned to 4KB.
On Oct 5, 2010, at 6:36 PM, Michael DeMan wrote:
> Hi upfront, and thanks for the valuable informati
Hi upfront, and thanks for the valuable information.
On Oct 5, 2010, at 4:12 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>> Another annoying thing with the whole 4K sector size, is what happens
>> when you need to replace drives next year, or the year after?
>
> About the only mitigation needed is to ensure that a
On 2010-Oct-06 05:59:06 +0800, Michael DeMan wrote:
>Another annoying thing with the whole 4K sector size, is what happens
>when you need to replace drives next year, or the year after?
About the only mitigation needed is to ensure that any partitioning is
based on multiples of 4KB.
> Does
>any
Michael DeMan wrote:
The WD 1TB 'enterprise' drives are still 512 sector size and safe to
use, who knows though, maybe they just started shipping with 4K sector
size as I write this e-mail?
Another annoying thing with the whole 4K sector size, is what happens
when you need to replace drives n
On Oct 5, 2010, at 2:06 PM, Michael DeMan wrote:
>
> On Oct 5, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
>
>>> Western Digital RE3 WD1002FBYS 1TB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal
>>> Hard Drive -Bare Drive
>>>
>>> are only $129.
>>>
>>> vs. $89 for the 'regular' black drives.
>>>
>>> 45
On Oct 5, 2010, at 2:47 PM, casper@sun.com wrote:
>
>
> I've seen several important features when selecting a drive for
> a mirror:
>
> TLER (the ability of the drive to timeout a command)
> sector size (native vs virtual)
> power use (specifically at home)
> perform
>My immediate reaction to this is "time to avoid WD drives for a while";
>until things shake out and we know what's what reliably.
>
>But, um, what do we know about say the Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 ($70),
>the SAMSUNG Spinpoint F3 1TB ($75), or the HITACHI Deskstar 1TB 3.5"
>($70)?
I've seen s
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
> > Western Digital RE3 WD1002FBYS 1TB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal
> > Hard Drive -Bare Drive
> >
> > are only $129.
> >
> > vs. $89 for the 'regular' black drives.
> >
> > 45% higher price, but it is my understanding that the 'RA
On Tue, October 5, 2010 15:30, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
> I just discovered WD Black drives are rumored not to be set to allow TLER.
> Does anyone know how much performance impact the lack of TLER might have
> on a large pool? Choosing Enterprise drives will cost about 60% more, and
> on a la
On Oct 5, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
>> Western Digital RE3 WD1002FBYS 1TB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal
>> Hard Drive -Bare Drive
>>
>> are only $129.
>>
>> vs. $89 for the 'regular' black drives.
>>
>> 45% higher price, but it is my understanding that the 'RAID Editi
> Western Digital RE3 WD1002FBYS 1TB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal
> Hard Drive -Bare Drive
>
> are only $129.
>
> vs. $89 for the 'regular' black drives.
>
> 45% higher price, but it is my understanding that the 'RAID Edition'
> ones also are physically constructed for longer life, lower
I'm not sure on the TLER issues by themselves, but after the nightmares I have
gone through dealing with the 'green drives', which have both the TLER issue
and the IntelliPower head parking issues, I would just stay away from it all
entirely and pay extra for the 'RAID Editiion' drives.
Just ou
28 matches
Mail list logo
