Am Dienstag, 16. Februar 2010 schrieb Alex Schuster:
No need for either, just look up the drive on Samsung's homepage [*]. It's
512 bytes/sector, you should be fine.
Gee thanks. Though that still keeps me baffled about my results, I can start
looking for other reasons for it. :) Consider the
Am Montag, 15. Februar 2010 schrieb Willie Wong:
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 01:48:01AM +0100, Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
Sorry if I reheat a topic that some already consider closed. I used the
weekend to experiment on that stuff and need to report my results.
Because they startle me a little.
Frank Steinmetzger writes:
Am Montag, 15. Februar 2010 schrieb Willie Wong:
Instead of guessing using this rather imprecise metric, why not just
look up the serial number of your drive and see what the physical
sector size is?
Well, at differences of 50%, precision is of no relevance
Am Sonntag, 7. Februar 2010 schrieb Mark Knecht:
Hi Willie,
OK - it turns out if I start fdisk using the -u option it show me
sector numbers. Looking at the original partition put on just using
default values it had the starting sector was 63 - probably about the
worst value it could be.
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 01:48:01AM +0100, Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
Sorry if I reheat a topic that some already consider closed. I used the
weekend to experiment on that stuff and need to report my results. Because
they startle me a little.
I first tried different start sectors around
2010/2/14 Willie Wong ww...@math.princeton.edu:
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 01:48:01AM +0100, Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
SNIP
action SS (1st) SS (2nd) SS+2 SS+4 SS+6 SS+8
-+--+--+--+--+--+--
untar portage
On Tuesday 09 February 2010 16:31:15 Mark Knecht wrote:
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Mark Knecht markkne...@gmail.com wrote:
SNIP
There's a few small downsides I've run into with all of this so far:
1) Since we don't use sector 63 it seems that fdisk will still tell
you that you can
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 1:06 AM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday 09 February 2010 16:31:15 Mark Knecht wrote:
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Mark Knecht markkne...@gmail.com wrote:
SNIP
There's a few small downsides I've run into with all of this so far:
1) Since we
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 06:59 +, Neil Walker wrote:
Iain Buchanan wrote:
I'm starting to stray OT here, but I'm considering a second-hand Adaptec
2420SA - this is real hardware raid right?
It's a PCI-X card (not PCI-E). Are you sure that's right for your system?
yes, I have an old
On Mittwoch 10 Februar 2010, Iain Buchanan wrote:
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 07:31 +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
On Mittwoch 10 Februar 2010, Iain Buchanan wrote:
so long as you didn't have any non-detectable disk errors before
removing the disk, or any drive failure while one of the
On Mittwoch 10 Februar 2010, Iain Buchanan wrote:
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 07:31 +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
On Mittwoch 10 Februar 2010, Iain Buchanan wrote:
so long as you didn't have any non-detectable disk errors before
removing the disk, or any drive failure while one of the
On Wednesday 10 February 2010 00:22:31 Iain Buchanan wrote:
On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 08:47 +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
I now only need to figure out the best way to configure LVM over this to
get the best performance from it. Does anyone know of a decent way of
figuring this out?
I got 6
On Wednesday 10 February 2010 08:08:44 Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Wednesday 10 February 2010 01:22:31 Iain Buchanan wrote:
On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 08:47 +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
I now only need to figure out the best way to configure LVM over this
to get the best performance from it. Does
On Mittwoch 10 Februar 2010, J. Roeleveld wrote:
As for recovery, I always use sysrescuecd (http://www.sysresccd.org) and
this has Raid and LVM support in it. (Same with the Gentoo-livecds)
sysrescuecd failed me hard two nights ago. 64bit kernel paniced with stack
corruptions, 32bit kernel
On Wednesday 10 February 2010 02:28:59 Stroller wrote:
On 9 Feb 2010, at 19:37, J. Roeleveld wrote:
...
Don't get me started on those ;)
The reason I use Linux Software Raid is because:
1) I can't afford hardware raid adapters
2) It's generally faster then hardware fakeraid
I'd
On Wednesday 10 February 2010 12:03:51 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
On Mittwoch 10 Februar 2010, J. Roeleveld wrote:
As for recovery, I always use sysrescuecd (http://www.sysresccd.org)
and this has Raid and LVM support in it. (Same with the Gentoo-livecds)
sysrescuecd failed me hard two
On Mittwoch 10 Februar 2010, J. Roeleveld wrote:
On Wednesday 10 February 2010 12:03:51 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
On Mittwoch 10 Februar 2010, J. Roeleveld wrote:
As for recovery, I always use sysrescuecd (http://www.sysresccd.org)
and this has Raid and LVM support in it. (Same with the
On 10 Feb 2010, at 11:14, J. Roeleveld wrote:
On Wednesday 10 February 2010 02:28:59 Stroller wrote:
On 9 Feb 2010, at 19:37, J. Roeleveld wrote:
...
Don't get me started on those ;)
The reason I use Linux Software Raid is because:
1) I can't afford hardware raid adapters
2) It's generally
On Wednesday 10 February 2010 17:37:47 Stroller wrote:
On 10 Feb 2010, at 11:14, J. Roeleveld wrote:
On Wednesday 10 February 2010 02:28:59 Stroller wrote:
On 9 Feb 2010, at 19:37, J. Roeleveld wrote:
...
Don't get me started on those ;)
The reason I use Linux Software Raid is because:
On 10 Feb 2010, at 17:26, J. Roeleveld wrote:
...
The mainboard I use (ASUS M3N-WS) has a working hotswap support
(Yes, I tested
this) using hotswap drive bays.
Take a disk out, Linux actually sees it being removed prior to
writing to it
and when I stick it back in, it gets a new device
On Monday 08 February 2010 21:34:01 Paul Hartman wrote:
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Valmor de Almeida val.gen...@gmail.com
wrote:
Mark Knecht wrote:
[snip]
This has been helpful for me. I'm glad Valmor is getting better
results also.
[snip]
These 4k-sector drives can be
On 9 Feb 2010, at 00:27, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 14:34:01 -0600, Paul Hartman wrote:
Thanks for the info everyone, but do you understand the agony I am
now
suffering at the fact that all disk in my system (including all parts
of my RAID5) are starting on sector 63 and I
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 12:46:40 +, Stroller wrote:
With the RAID, you could fail one disk, repartition, re-add it,
rinse and
repeat. But that doesn't take care of the time issue.
Aren't you thinking of LVM, or something?
No. The very nature of RAID is redundancy, so you could remove
On Dienstag 09 Februar 2010, Stroller wrote:
On 9 Feb 2010, at 00:27, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 14:34:01 -0600, Paul Hartman wrote:
Thanks for the info everyone, but do you understand the agony I am
now
suffering at the fact that all disk in my system (including all parts
On Tuesday 09 February 2010 13:46:40 Stroller wrote:
On 9 Feb 2010, at 00:27, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 14:34:01 -0600, Paul Hartman wrote:
Thanks for the info everyone, but do you understand the agony I am
now
suffering at the fact that all disk in my system (including all
On 9 Feb 2010, at 13:57, J. Roeleveld wrote:
...
With Raid (NOT striping) you can remove one disk, leaving the Raid-
array in a
reduced state. Then repartition the disk you removed, repartition
and then re-
add the disk to the array.
Exactly. Except the partitions extend, in the same
On Tuesday 09 February 2010 16:11:14 Stroller wrote:
On 9 Feb 2010, at 13:57, J. Roeleveld wrote:
...
With Raid (NOT striping) you can remove one disk, leaving the Raid-
array in a
reduced state. Then repartition the disk you removed, repartition
and then re-
add the disk to the
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:11:14 +, Stroller wrote:
You cannot remove one disk from the array and repartition it, because
the partition is across the array, not the disk. The single disk,
removed from a RAID 5 (specified by Paul Hartman) array does not
contain any partitions, just one
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Mark Knecht markkne...@gmail.com wrote:
SNIP
There's a few small downsides I've run into with all of this so far:
1) Since we don't use sector 63 it seems that fdisk will still tell
you that you can use 63 until you use up all your primary partitions.
It used
Am Dienstag, 9. Februar 2010 schrieb Frank Steinmetzger:
4) Everything I've done so far leave me with messages about partition
1 not ending on a cylinder boundary. Googling on that one says don't
worry about it. I don't know...
Well since only the start of a partition determines its
On 9 Feb 2010, at 15:43, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:11:14 +, Stroller wrote:
You cannot remove one disk from the array and repartition it, because
the partition is across the array, not the disk. The single disk,
removed from a RAID 5 (specified by Paul Hartman) array
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 14:34:01 -0600, Paul Hartman wrote:
Thanks for the info everyone, but do you understand the agony I am now
suffering at the fact that all disk in my system (including all parts
of my RAID5) are starting
On 9 Feb 2010, at 15:27, J. Roeleveld wrote:
On Tuesday 09 February 2010 16:11:14 Stroller wrote:
On 9 Feb 2010, at 13:57, J. Roeleveld wrote:
...
With Raid (NOT striping) you can remove one disk, leaving the Raid-
array in a
reduced state. Then repartition the disk you removed, repartition
Hey guys,
There seems to be a lot of confusion over this RAID thing.
Hardware RAID does not use partitions. The entire drive is used (or,
actually, the amount defined in setting up the array) and all I/O is
handled by the BIOS on the RAID controller. The array appears as a
single drive to the OS
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Frank Steinmetzger war...@gmx.de wrote:
SNIP
So sdb7 now ends at sector 976703935. Interestingly, I couldn’t use the
immediate next sector for sdb8:
start for sdb8 response by fdisk
976703936 sector already allocated
976703944 Value out of
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Stroller strol...@stellar.eclipse.co.uk wrote:
SNIP
IMO this is a fdisk bug. A feature should be added so that it tries to
align optimally in most circumstances. RAID controllers should not be trying
to do anything clever to accommodate potential misalignment
On Tuesday 09 February 2010 19:25:00 Mark Knecht wrote:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Stroller strol...@stellar.eclipse.co.uk
wrote: SNIP
IMO this is a fdisk bug. A feature should be added so that it tries to
align optimally in most circumstances. RAID controllers should not be
trying
On Tuesday 09 February 2010 19:03:39 Neil Walker wrote:
Hey guys,
There seems to be a lot of confusion over this RAID thing.
Hardware RAID does not use partitions. The entire drive is used (or,
actually, the amount defined in setting up the array) and all I/O is
handled by the BIOS on the
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 17:17:48 +, Stroller wrote:
only applies in the specific case that Paul Hartman is using Linux
software RAID, not the general case of RAID in general.
That's true, although in the Linux world I expect that the number of
software RAID users far outnumbers the hardware
Am Dienstag, 9. Februar 2010 schrieb Frank Steinmetzger:
I have reset sdb7 to use boundaries divisible by 64.
Old rangebegin%64 size%64 New rangebegin%64
size%64 813113973-976703804 0.82810.125813113984-976703935 0
0
And guess what - the speed of
On Tuesday 09 February 2010 22:13:39 Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
snipped
When I use parted on the drives, it says (both the old external and my 2
months old internal):
Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
So no speedup for me then. :-/
That doesn't mean a thing, I'm afraid.
I have the
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Frank Steinmetzger war...@gmx.de wrote:
Am Dienstag, 9. Februar 2010 schrieb Frank Steinmetzger:
I have reset sdb7 to use boundaries divisible by 64.
Old range begin%64 size%64 New range begin%64
size%64 813113973-976703804 0.8281
On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 08:47 +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
I now only need to figure out the best way to configure LVM over this to get
the best performance from it. Does anyone know of a decent way of figuring
this out?
I got 6 disks in Raid-5.
why LVM? Planning on changing partition size
On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 13:34 +, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 12:46:40 +, Stroller wrote:
With the RAID, you could fail one disk, repartition, re-add it,
rinse and
repeat. But that doesn't take care of the time issue.
Aren't you thinking of LVM, or something?
On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 20:37 +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
Don't get me started on those ;)
The reason I use Linux Software Raid is because:
1) I can't afford hardware raid adapters
2) It's generally faster then hardware fakeraid
I'm starting to stray OT here, but I'm considering a second-hand
On Tuesday 09 February 2010 18:03:39 Neil Walker wrote:
Be lucky,
Neil
How would I go about doing that?
--
Rgds
Peter.
On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 14:54 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Frank Steinmetzger war...@gmx.de wrote:
When I use parted on the drives, it says (both the old external and my 2
months old internal):
Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
So no speedup for me
On 9 Feb 2010, at 23:52, Iain Buchanan wrote:
...
I'm starting to stray OT here, but I'm considering a second-hand
Adaptec
2420SA - this is real hardware raid right?
Looks like it. Looks pretty nice, too.
The affordable PCI / PCI-X 3wares don't do RAID6 - you have to go PCIe
for that, I
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Iain Buchanan iai...@netspace.net.au wrote:
On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 14:54 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Frank Steinmetzger war...@gmx.de wrote:
When I use parted on the drives, it says (both the old external and my 2
months old
On 9 Feb 2010, at 19:37, J. Roeleveld wrote:
...
Don't get me started on those ;)
The reason I use Linux Software Raid is because:
1) I can't afford hardware raid adapters
2) It's generally faster then hardware fakeraid
I'd rather have slow hardware RAID than fast software RAID. I'm not
On Mittwoch 10 Februar 2010, Iain Buchanan wrote:
On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 13:34 +, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 12:46:40 +, Stroller wrote:
With the RAID, you could fail one disk, repartition, re-add it,
rinse and
repeat. But that doesn't take care of the time
Peter Humphrey wrote:
On Tuesday 09 February 2010 18:03:39 Neil Walker wrote:
Be lucky,
Neil
How would I go about doing that?
Well, you need a rabbit's foot, a four leaf clover, a horseshoe
(remember to keep the open end uppermost), a black cat,
;)
Be lucky,
Neil
Iain Buchanan wrote:
I'm starting to stray OT here, but I'm considering a second-hand Adaptec
2420SA - this is real hardware raid right?
It's a PCI-X card (not PCI-E). Are you sure that's right for your system?
If I'm buying drives in the 1Tb size - does this 4k issue affect
hardware
On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 17:27 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Iain Buchanan iai...@netspace.net.au wrote:
On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 14:54 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
Frank,
As best I can tell so far none of the Linux tools will tell you
that the sectors are 4K. I had
On Wednesday 10 February 2010 01:22:31 Iain Buchanan wrote:
On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 08:47 +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
I now only need to figure out the best way to configure LVM over this to
get the best performance from it. Does anyone know of a decent way of
figuring this out?
I got 6
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 07:31 +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
On Mittwoch 10 Februar 2010, Iain Buchanan wrote:
so long as you didn't have any non-detectable disk errors before
removing the disk, or any drive failure while one of the drives were
removed. And the deterioration in
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Willie Wong ww...@math.princeton.edu wrote:
On Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 01:42:18PM -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
OK - it turns out if I start fdisk using the -u option it show me
sector numbers. Looking at the original partition put on just using
default values it
Mark Knecht wrote:
[snip]
This has been helpful for me. I'm glad Valmor is getting better
results also.
[snip]
These 4k-sector drives can be problematic when upgrading older
computers. For instance, my laptop BIOS would not boot from the toshiba
drive I mentioned earlier. However when used
On 8 Feb 2010, at 05:25, Valmor de Almeida wrote:
Mark Knecht wrote:
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Willie Wong ww...@math.princeton.edu
wrote:
[snip]
OK - it turns out if I start fdisk using the -u option it show me
sector numbers. Looking at the original partition put on just using
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Valmor de Almeida val.gen...@gmail.com wrote:
Mark Knecht wrote:
[snip]
This has been helpful for me. I'm glad Valmor is getting better
results also.
[snip]
These 4k-sector drives can be problematic when upgrading older
computers. For instance, my
Am Sonntag, 7. Februar 2010 schrieb Mark Knecht:
Hi Willie,
OK - it turns out if I start fdisk using the -u option it show me
sector numbers. Looking at the original partition put on just using
default values it had the starting sector was 63
Same here.
- probably about the worst value
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 14:34:01 -0600, Paul Hartman wrote:
Thanks for the info everyone, but do you understand the agony I am now
suffering at the fact that all disk in my system (including all parts
of my RAID5) are starting on sector 63 and I don't have sufficient
free space (or free time) to
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Frank Steinmetzger war...@gmx.de wrote:
Am Sonntag, 7. Februar 2010 schrieb Mark Knecht:
Hi Willie,
OK - it turns out if I start fdisk using the -u option it show me
sector numbers. Looking at the original partition put on just using
default values it had
On 9 Feb 2010, at 00:05, Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
...
- probably about the worst value it could be.
Hm what about those first 62 sectors?
If I'm understanding correctly, then the drive will *always* have to
start at the 63rd sector, then swing back round and start reading a
1st
On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 01:05:11AM +0100, Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
Am Sonntag, 7. Februar 2010 schrieb Mark Knecht:
Hi Willie,
OK - it turns out if I start fdisk using the -u option it show me
sector numbers. Looking at the original partition put on just using
default values it had
Am Dienstag, 9. Februar 2010 schrieb Mark Knecht:
4) Everything I've done so far leave me with messages about partition
1 not ending on a cylinder boundary. Googling on that one says don't
worry about it. I don't know...
Would that be when there’s a + sign behind the end sector? I believe to
Hi,
I got a WD 1T drive to use in a new machine for my dad. I didn't
pay a huge amount of attention to the technical details when I
purchased it other than it was SATA2, big, and the price was good.
Here's the NewEgg link:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136490
I
On Sunday 07 February 2010 19:27:46 Mark Knecht wrote:
Every time there is an apparent delay I just see the hard drive
light turned on solid. That said as far as I know if I wait for things
to complete the data is there but I haven't tested it extensively.
Is this a bad drive or am I
On Sonntag 07 Februar 2010, Alexander wrote:
On Sunday 07 February 2010 19:27:46 Mark Knecht wrote:
Every time there is an apparent delay I just see the hard drive
light turned on solid. That said as far as I know if I wait for things
to complete the data is there but I haven't tested
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Alexander b3n...@yandex.ru wrote:
On Sunday 07 February 2010 19:27:46 Mark Knecht wrote:
Every time there is an apparent delay I just see the hard drive
light turned on solid. That said as far as I know if I wait for things
to complete the data is there but
On Sonntag 07 Februar 2010, Mark Knecht wrote:
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Alexander b3n...@yandex.ru wrote:
On Sunday 07 February 2010 19:27:46 Mark Knecht wrote:
Every time there is an apparent delay I just see the hard drive
light turned on solid. That said as far as I know if I
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann
volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sonntag 07 Februar 2010, Alexander wrote:
On Sunday 07 February 2010 19:27:46 Mark Knecht wrote:
Every time there is an apparent delay I just see the hard drive
light turned on solid. That said as
On Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 08:27:46AM -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
QUOTE
4KB physical sectors: KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING!
Pros: Quiet, cool-running, big cache
Cons: The 4KB physical sectors are a problem waiting to happen. If you
misalign your partitions, disk performance can suffer. I ran
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Willie Wong ww...@math.princeton.edu wrote:
On Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 08:27:46AM -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
QUOTE
4KB physical sectors: KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING!
Pros: Quiet, cool-running, big cache
Cons: The 4KB physical sectors are a problem waiting to happen.
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Willie Wong ww...@math.princeton.edu wrote:
On Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 08:27:46AM -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
QUOTE
4KB physical sectors: KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING!
Pros: Quiet, cool-running, big cache
Cons: The 4KB physical sectors are a problem waiting to happen.
4KB physical sectors: KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING!
Good article by Theodore T'so, might be helpful:
http://thunk.org/tytso/blog/2009/02/20/aligning-filesystems-to-an-ssds-erase-block-size/
--
Kyle
On Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 01:42:18PM -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
OK - it turns out if I start fdisk using the -u option it show me
sector numbers. Looking at the original partition put on just using
default values it had the starting sector was 63 - probably about the
worst value it could be.
Mark Knecht wrote:
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Willie Wong ww...@math.princeton.edu wrote:
[snip]
OK - it turns out if I start fdisk using the -u option it show me
sector numbers. Looking at the original partition put on just using
default values it had the starting sector was 63 -
78 matches
Mail list logo
