Mehma Sarja wrote:
There is one more thing to think about and that is cumulative aging.
Starting with all new disks is a false sense of security because as they
age, and if they are in any sort of RAID/performance configuration, they
will age and wear evenly.
Expanding on that:
It is
Phil Stracchino wrote:
Well, a good start is to use something like SMART monitoring set up to
alert you when any drive enters what it considers a pre-fail state.
(Which can be simple age, increasing numbers of hard errors, increasing
variation in spindle speed, increasing slow starts, etc,
Well, a good start is to use something like SMART monitoring set up to
alert you when any drive enters what it considers a pre-fail state.
(Which can be simple age, increasing numbers of hard errors, increasing
variation in spindle speed, increasing slow starts, etc, etc...)
FWIW: Nexan,
John Drescher wrote:
I would say this is true for smart PASS / FAIL but if you look at the
raw SMART data you can use this to predict failure before it totally
fails.
I agree but they don't do that.
At least I have been able to predict this for the 10 to 20
drives that have died here at
I haven't had as many die as you have (Do your users kick their computers
around the room?) but my experience matches yours when looking at changes in
the raw data. The problem is I haven't had enough die to put 100% certainty
on it so I tend to rely on smartd's output.
I have between 100
John Drescher wrote:
I haven't had as many die as you have (Do your users kick their computers
around the room?) but my experience matches yours when looking at changes in
the raw data. The problem is I haven't had enough die to put 100% certainty
on it so I tend to rely on smartd's output.
On 3/23/11 7:28 AM, Alan Brown wrote:
Phil Stracchino wrote:
Well, a good start is to use something like SMART monitoring set up to
alert you when any drive enters what it considers a pre-fail state.
(Which can be simple age, increasing numbers of hard errors, increasing
variation in spindle
Mehma Sarja wrote:
Since drives ONLY fail on Friday afternoons local time, an effective
remedy is to check for SMART messages before the weekend. Foolish as
that is, I am surprised how many times it has held true for me.
For similar reasons we only perform work on critical infrastructure on
On 3/23/11 12:51 PM, Alan Brown wrote:
Mehma Sarja wrote:
Since drives ONLY fail on Friday afternoons local time, an effective
remedy is to check for SMART messages before the weekend. Foolish as
that is, I am surprised how many times it has held true for me.
For similar reasons we only
Chris Hoogendyk wrote:
After that, I convinced management to pay for mirrored drives.
How much was the overtime bill? ;)
--
Enable your software for Intel(R) Active Management Technology to meet the
growing
Phil Stracchino wrote:
With RAID6, you can survive any one or two disk failures, in degraded
mode. You'll have a larger working set than RAID10, but performance
will be slower because of the overhead of parity calculations. A third
failure will bring the array down and you will lose the
Not really, RAID6+0 only requires 8 drives minimum you can create two
RAID6's of 4 drives each and stripe them together.This has a benefit
as multi-layer based parity raids increases random write iops
performance. But the main issue is array integrity, mainly with
large capacity drives
Il 18/03/2011 19:01, Mehma Sarja ha scritto:
On 3/17/11 4:57 PM, Phil Stracchino wrote:
On 03/17/11 18:46, Marcello Romani wrote:
Il 16/03/2011 18:38, Phil Stracchino ha scritto:
On 03/16/11 13:08, Mike Hobbs wrote:
Hello, I'm currently testing bacula v5.0.3 and so far so good. One
of
On 03/18/11 19:41, Marcello Romani wrote:
Il 18/03/2011 19:01, Mehma Sarja ha scritto:
There is one more thing to think about and that is cumulative aging.
Starting with all new disks is a false sense of security because as they
age, and if they are in any sort of RAID/performance
On 03/18/11 21:00, Mehma Sarja wrote:
I can only think of staggering drive age and maintenance. Here's hoping
that someone on the list can come up with more creative solutions/practices.
Try to avoid buying a large number of drives from the same batch. This
is frequently easily accomplished
Il 16/03/2011 18:38, Phil Stracchino ha scritto:
On 03/16/11 13:08, Mike Hobbs wrote:
Hello, I'm currently testing bacula v5.0.3 and so far so good. One
of my issues though, I have a 16 bay Promise Technologies VessJBOD. How
do I get bacula to use all the disks for writing volumes to?
Il 18/03/2011 00:57, Phil Stracchino ha scritto:
On 03/17/11 18:46, Marcello Romani wrote:
Il 16/03/2011 18:38, Phil Stracchino ha scritto:
On 03/16/11 13:08, Mike Hobbs wrote:
Hello, I'm currently testing bacula v5.0.3 and so far so good. One
of my issues though, I have a 16 bay
Hello, I'm currently testing bacula v5.0.3 and so far so good. One
of my issues though, I have a 16 bay Promise Technologies VessJBOD. How
do I get bacula to use all the disks for writing volumes to?
I guess the way I envision it working would be, 50gb volumes would be
used and when disk1
On 03/16/2011 01:12 PM, Robison, Dave wrote:
Just curious, why not put that jbod into a RAID array? I believe you'd
get far better performance with the additional spools and you'd get
redundancy as well.
Personally I'd set that up as a RAIDZ using ZFS on FreeBSD.
I believe the reason why
On 03/16/2011 06:29 PM, Mike Hobbs wrote:
On 03/16/2011 01:12 PM, Robison, Dave wrote:
Just curious, why not put that jbod into a RAID array? I believe you'd
get far better performance with the additional spools and you'd get
redundancy as well.
Personally I'd set that up as a RAIDZ using
On 03/16/11 13:08, Mike Hobbs wrote:
Hello, I'm currently testing bacula v5.0.3 and so far so good. One
of my issues though, I have a 16 bay Promise Technologies VessJBOD. How
do I get bacula to use all the disks for writing volumes to?
I guess the way I envision it working would be,
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Mike Hobbs mho...@mtl.mit.edu wrote:
On 03/16/2011 01:12 PM, Robison, Dave wrote:
Just curious, why not put that jbod into a RAID array? I believe you'd
get far better performance with the additional spools and you'd get
redundancy as well.
Personally I'd
22 matches
Mail list logo
