Hi--
On Jun 16, 2009, at 5:53 PM, Andrew Reilly wrote:
I bought a pair of identical WD 750G SATA drives the other day
and was surprised to discover that they were different sizes:
ad4: 715403MB WDC WD7500AACS-00D6B1 01.01A01 at ata2-master SATA150
ad6: 715404MB WDC WD7500AACS-00D6B1 01.01A01
On 2009-Jun-15 09:57:39 +0100, Pete French petefre...@ticketswitch.com wrote:
In my expereince all the ones from the same manufacturer and model are
exactly the same size. Admittedly I only ever buy SCSI, but that
shouldnt make too much difference should it ?
I have 3 Samsung HD103UJ disks and
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 04:53:12AM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2009-Jun-15 09:57:39 +0100, Pete French petefre...@ticketswitch.com
wrote:
In my expereince all the ones from the same manufacturer and model are
exactly the same size. Admittedly I only ever buy SCSI, but that
shouldnt make
The main reason for NOT using zfs directly on raw disks is the fact
that you cannot replace a vdev in a pool with a smaller one, only with
one of equal size or bigger. This leads to a problem: if you are a
regular Joe User (and not a company buying certified hardware from a
specific vendor) and
The new 2tb disk you buy can very often be actually a few sectors
smaller then the disk you are trying to replace, this in turn will
lead to zfs not accepting the new disk as a replacement, because it's
smaller (no matter how small).
Heh - you are in for a pleasent surprise my friend! ;-) If
If this is true, some magic has been done to the FreeBSD port of ZFS,
because according to SUN documentation is is definitely not supposed
to be possible.
- Dan Naumov
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Pete
Frenchpetefre...@ticketswitch.com wrote:
The new 2tb disk you buy can very often be
If this is true, some magic has been done to the FreeBSD port of ZFS,
because according to SUN documentation is is definitely not supposed
to be possible.
I just tried it again to make sure I wasn't imagining things - you
can give it a shot yourself using mdconfig to create some drives. It
Haven't had time to test (stuck at work), but I will trust your word
:) Well, this sounds nice and sensible. I am curious though if there
have been any numbers regarding how much do actual drive sizes vary
in the real world when it comes to disks of same
manufacturer/model/size. I guess this
Haven't had time to test (stuck at work), but I will trust your word
:) Well, this sounds nice and sensible. I am curious though if there
It's good isn't it ? I just did another test, replacing both drives
wuth smaller ones, and you can't then recursively add an even smaller one
in :-) If you
Freddie Cash writes:
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Dan Naumov dan.nau...@gmail.com wrote:
I just wanted to have an extra pair (or a dozen) of eyes look this
configuration over before I commit to it (tested it in VMWare just in
case, it works, so I am considering doing this on real
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 8:47 AM, George Hartzell hartz...@alerce.comwrote:
Freddie Cash writes:
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Dan Naumov dan.nau...@gmail.com
wrote:
I just wanted to have an extra pair (or a dozen) of eyes look this
configuration over before I commit to it
Hello list.
I just wanted to have an extra pair (or a dozen) of eyes look this
configuration over before I commit to it (tested it in VMWare just in
case, it works, so I am considering doing this on real hardware soon).
I drew a nice diagram: http://www.pastebin.ca/1460089 Since it doesnt
show on
* Dan Naumov dan.nau...@gmail.com [2009-06-14 18:17]:
I just wanted to have an extra pair (or a dozen) of eyes look this
configuration over before I commit to it (tested it in VMWare just in
case, it works, so I am considering doing this on real hardware soon).
I drew a nice diagram:
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Dan Naumov dan.nau...@gmail.com wrote:
I just wanted to have an extra pair (or a dozen) of eyes look this
configuration over before I commit to it (tested it in VMWare just in
case, it works, so I am considering doing this on real hardware soon).
I drew a nice
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 07:16:52PM -0700, Freddie Cash wrote:
I don't know for sure if it's the same on FreeBSD, but on Solaris, ZFS will
disable the onboard disk cache if the vdevs are not whole disks.
pjd@ has stated in the past that this doesn't apply to FreeBSD:
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Emil Mikulic emiku...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 07:16:52PM -0700, Freddie Cash wrote:
I don't know for sure if it's the same on FreeBSD, but on Solaris, ZFS
will
disable the onboard disk cache if the vdevs are not whole disks.
pjd@ has
16 matches
Mail list logo
