On 5/28/2014 10:34 AM, Saso Kiselkov wrote:
On 5/28/14, 4:08 PM, Schweiss, Chip wrote:
Intel has several SATA SSDs with proper super-cap protected caches that
make good log devices.
I'd recommend looking at a Intel DC S3700. The 200 GB or 400 GB
varieties promise ~3 4k random write IOPS
On 5/29/2014 11:19 AM, Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
On 5/28/2014 10:34 AM, Saso Kiselkov wrote:
On 5/28/14, 4:08 PM, Schweiss, Chip wrote:
Intel has several SATA SSDs with proper super-cap protected caches that
make good log devices.
I'd recommend looking at a Intel DC S3700. The 200 GB or 400
On May 29, 2014, at 11:25 AM, Doug Hughes d...@will.to wrote:
The higher price is the reason I tend to prefer the 320 series that come in
around $1/GB and have smaller sizes available. I use them for OS + slog.
What about the S3500? I've heard that's more the drop-in replacement for the
On 5/29/14, 5:48 PM, Dan McDonald wrote:
On May 29, 2014, at 11:25 AM, Doug Hughes d...@will.to wrote:
The higher price is the reason I tend to prefer the 320 series that come in
around $1/GB and have smaller sizes available. I use them for OS + slog.
What about the S3500? I've heard
On May 29, 2014, at 11:58 AM, Saso Kiselkov skiselkov...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/29/14, 5:48 PM, Dan McDonald wrote:
On May 29, 2014, at 11:25 AM, Doug Hughes d...@will.to wrote:
The higher price is the reason I tend to prefer the 320 series that come in
around $1/GB and have smaller
Hi all,
I have a pair of WDC WD10EZEX connected through a LSI 1068E HBA which
is only running at 1.5 Gb/s all though the disks is SATA 3.0
Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 which is also SATA 3.0 are running at 3.0
Gb/s.
I know LSI 1068E HBA is only SATA 2.0 so 3.0 Gb/s is maximum speed but
why is the
I believe there are some SATA 6Gbps disks that only have 1.5Gbps as a
fallback, and do not support 3Gbps.
For a spinning hard disk, certainly a 7200 rpm disk, it is not a noticeable
handicap to run at 1.5 vs. 3Gbps.
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Michael Rasmussen m...@miras.org wrote:
On
On Thu, 29 May 2014 21:20:50 +0200
Michael Rasmussen m...@miras.org wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 2014 18:40:30 +
Carlos M. Perez cpe...@cmpcs.com wrote:
A few suggestions on things to check:
- Some of the 3GB SATA drives had a jumper that would limit operation to
1.5GB/s.
This is
On May 29, 2014, at 12:23 PM, Dan Swartzendruber dswa...@druber.com wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 2014 20:58:50 +0200
Chris Ferebee c...@ferebee.net wrote:
Or, BTW, the cables. They could be marginal, still tolerated @ 3 Gbps by
the Seagate, but rejected by the WDs, for instance.
Since all
On Thu, 29 May 2014 17:12:09 -0700
Richard Elling richard.ell...@richardelling.com wrote:
How to troubleshoot:
sasinfo hba-port -y
shows negotiated speeds
sasinfo hba-port -l
shows link stats as seen by the HBA -- look for disparity errors
On Thu, 29 May 2014 17:12:09 -0700
Richard Elling richard.ell...@richardelling.com wrote:
How to troubleshoot:
sasinfo hba-port -y
shows negotiated speeds
sasinfo hba-port -l
shows link stats as seen by the HBA -- look for disparity errors
On Thu, 29 May 2014 14:10:27 -0600
Warren Marts protonwrang...@gmail.com wrote:
For a spinning hard disk, certainly a 7200 rpm disk, it is not a noticeable
handicap to run at 1.5 vs. 3Gbps.
After having raised the speed to 3Gb/s on the WD disks I measure an
overall increase in pool
Does anyone have any experience with this issue (Assertion failed:
rn-rn_nozpool == B_FALSE, file ../common/libzfs_import.c, line 1077,
function zpool_open_func) with OmniOS?
I have a large system that used to be happy running OmniOS until the a
pool became corrupted and I had to rebuild it.
Ah, vintage hardware :-)
On May 29, 2014, at 5:59 PM, Michael Rasmussen m...@miras.org wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 2014 17:12:09 -0700
Richard Elling richard.ell...@richardelling.com wrote:
How to troubleshoot:
sasinfo hba-port -y
shows negotiated speeds
sasinfo hba-port
14 matches
Mail list logo
