On 2010-Jan-27 05:38:57 +0800, "F. Wessels" wrote:
>But that wasn't my point. Vibration, in the drive and excited by the
>drive, increases with the spindle speed.
There's also vibration caused by head actuator movements. This is unlikely
to suffer from resonance amplification but may be higher a
On the subject of vibrations when using multiple drives in a case (tower), I'm
using silicone grommets on all the drive screws to isolate vibrations. This
does seem to greatly reduce the vibrations reaching the chassis, and makes the
machine a lot quieter, and so I would expect that this minimis
Good observation. It seems that I'm only keeping ahead of the folks in this
forum by running as hard as I can.
I just bought the sheet aluminum for making my drive cages. I'm going for the
drives-in-a-cage setup, but I'm also floating each drive on vinyl (and hence
dissipative, not resonant) v
@Bob, yes you're completely right. This kind of engineering is what you get
when buying a 2540 for example. All parts are nicely matched. When you build
your own whitebox the parts might not match.
But that wasn't my point. Vibration, in the drive and excited by the drive,
increases with the s
> "dc" == Daniel Carosone writes:
dc> There's a family of platypus in the creek just down the bike
dc> path from my house.
yeah, happy australiaday. :)
What I didn't understand in school is that egg layers like echidnas
are not exotic but are pettingzoo/farm/roadkill type animals.
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, F. Wessels wrote:
The "green" drives with their lower spindle speeds reduces this
effect.
I don't agree that lowering the spindle speed necessarily reduces
resonance. Reducing resonance is accomplished by assuring that
chassis components do not resonate (produce standin
After following this topic the last days, and nearly everybody contributed to
it, I think it's time to add a new factor.
Vibration.
First some prove how sensitive modern drives are:
http://blogs.sun.com/brendan/entry/unusual_disk_latency
Most "enterprise" drives also contain circuitry to handle
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 05:36:35PM -0500, Miles Nordin wrote:
> > "sb" == Simon Breden writes:
>
> sb> 1. In simple non-RAID single drive 'desktop' PC scenarios
> sb> where you have one drive, if your drive is experiencing
> sb> read/write errors, as this is the only drive you hav
> this sounds convincing to fetishists of an ordered
> world where
> egg-laying mammals do not exist, but it's utter
> rubbish.
Very insightful! :)
> As drives go bad they return errors frequently, and...
Yep, so have good regular backups, and move quickly once probs start.
Cheers,
Simon
http:
> "sb" == Simon Breden writes:
sb> 1. In simple non-RAID single drive 'desktop' PC scenarios
sb> where you have one drive, if your drive is experiencing
sb> read/write errors, as this is the only drive you have, and
sb> therefore you have no alternative redundant source of dat
> In general, any system which detects and acts upon
> faults, would like
> to detect faults sooner rather than later.
Yes, it makes sense. I think my main concern was about loss - in question 2.
> > 2. Does having shorter error reporting times
> provide any significant data safety through, for
On Jan 23, 2010, at 5:06 AM, Simon Breden wrote:
> Thanks a lot.
>
> I'd looked at SO many different RAID boxes and never had a good feeling about
> them from the point of data safety, that when I read the 'A Conversation with
> Jeff Bonwick and Bill Moore – The future of file systems' article
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 04:12:48PM -0500, Miles Nordin wrote:
> w> http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~greg/projects/erc/
>
> dead link?
Works for me - this is someone who's written patches for smartctl to
set this feature; these are standardised/documented commands, no
reverse engineering of DOS tool
Thanks a lot.
I'd looked at SO many different RAID boxes and never had a good feeling about
them from the point of data safety, that when I read the 'A Conversation with
Jeff Bonwick and Bill Moore – The future of file systems' article
(http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1317400), I was convinc
Thanks for your reply Miles.
I think I understand your points, but unfortunately my historical knowledge of
the the need for TLER etc solutions is lacking.
How I've understood it to be (as generic as possible, but possibly inaccurate
as a result):
1. In simple non-RAID single drive 'desktop' P
> "dc" == Daniel Carosone writes:
> "w" == Willy writes:
> "sb" == Simon Breden writes:
First of all, I've been so far assembling vdev stripes from different
manufacturers, such that one manufacturer can have a bad batch or
firmware bug killing all their drives at once without losi
I have 4 of the HD154UI Samsung Ecogreens, and was able to set the error
reporting time using HDAT2. The settings would survive a warm reboot, but not
a powercycle.
I too would like to thank you for your blog. It provided a lot guidance for me
in setting up OS and ZFS for my home NAS.
--
Thi
Thanks!
Yep, I was about to buy six or so WD15EADS or WD15EARS drives, but it looks
like I will not be ordering them now.
The bad news is that after looking at the Samsungs it too seems that they have
no way of changing the error reporting time in the 'desktop' drives. I hope I'm
wrong though.
And I agree as well. WD was about to get upwards of $500-$700 of my money, and
is now getting zero over this issue alone moving me to look harder for other
drives.
I'm sure a WD rep would tell us about how there are extra unseen goodies in the
RE line. Maybe.
--
This message posted from opens
+1
I agree 100%
I have a website whose ZFS Home File Server articles are read around 1 million
times a year, and so far I have recommended Western Digital drives
wholeheartedly, as I have found them to work flawlessly within my RAID system
using ZFS.
With this recent action by Western Digital
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:04:34AM -0800, Willy wrote:
> To those concerned about this issue, there is a patched version of
> smartmontools that enables the querying and setting of TLER/ERC/CCTL
> values (well, except for recent desktop drives from Western
> Digitial).
[Joining together two recent
To those concerned about this issue, there is a patched version of
smartmontools that enables the querying and setting of TLER/ERC/CCTL values
(well, except for recent desktop drives from Western Digitial). It's available
here http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~greg/projects/erc/
Unfortunately, smartmo
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010, R.G. Keen wrote:
I probably won't ever trust these drives; they were just convenient
for the test system, and may have the advantage (?!) of more
failures to try out the beauties of zfs.
The drives are probably just fine. Most likely Seagate "unbricked"
them and install
Well, there had to be some reason that they had enough of them come back to run
a "recertifying" program. 8-)
I rather expected something of that sort; thanks for doing the homework for me!
I appreciate the help.
I probably won't ever trust these drives; they were just convenient for the
test
Wow, that is cheap for an "enterprise class" drive.
A little over 1/3 of the reviews at newegg rated this drive as very poor
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16822148295
Hopefully, they've fixed whatever issues with your drives :-)
Be sure to do the firmware update
h
One reason I was so interested in this issue was the double-price of "raid
enabled" disks.
However, I realized that I am doing the initial proving, not production - even
if personal - of the system I'm building. So for that purpose, an array of
smaller and cheaper disks might be good.
In the
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Joerg Schilling
wrote:
> Giovanni Tirloni wrote:
>
>> We use Seagate Barracuda ES.2 1TB disks and every time the OS starts
>> to bang on a region of the disk with bad blocks (which essentially
>> degrades the performance of the whole pool) we get a call from our
>>
Giovanni Tirloni wrote:
> We use Seagate Barracuda ES.2 1TB disks and every time the OS starts
> to bang on a region of the disk with bad blocks (which essentially
> degrades the performance of the whole pool) we get a call from our
> clients complaining about NFS timeouts. They usually last for
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 4:07 PM, R.G. Keen wrote:
> OK. From the above suppositions, if we had a desktop (infinitely
> long retry on fail) disk and a soft-fail error in a sector, then the
> disk would effectively hang each time the sector was accessed.
> This would lead to
> (1) ZFS->SD-> disk read
> Richard Elling wrote:
> Perhaps I am not being clear. If a disk is really dead, then
> there are several different failure modes that can be responsible.
> For example, if a disk does not respond to selection, then it
> is diagnosed as failed very quickly. But that is not the TLER
> case. The T
On Jan 1, 2010, at 8:11 AM, R.G. Keen wrote:
On Dec 31, 2009, at 6:14 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
Some nits:
disks aren't marked as semi-bad, but if ZFS has trouble with a
block, it will try to not use the block again. So there is two
levels
of recovery at work: whole device and block.
Ah. I
> On Dec 31, 2009, at 6:14 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
> Some nits:
> disks aren't marked as semi-bad, but if ZFS has trouble with a
> block, it will try to not use the block again. So there is two levels
> of recovery at work: whole device and block.
Ah. I hadn't found that yet.
> The "one more an
On Dec 31, 2009, at 6:14 PM, R.G. Keen wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
I like the nice and short answer from this "Bob
Friesen" fellow the
best. :-)
It was succinct, wasn't it? 8-)
Sorry - I pulled the attribution from the ID, not the
signature which was waiting below. DOH!
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009, R.G. Keen wrote:
Given the largish aggregate monetary value to RAIDZ builders of
sidestepping the doubled-cost of raid specialized drives, it occurs
to me that having a special set of actions for desktop-ish drives
might be a good idea. Something like a fix-the-failed repair
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> I like the nice and short answer from this "Bob
> Friesen" fellow the
> best. :-)
It was succinct, wasn't it? 8-)
Sorry - I pulled the attribution from the ID, not the
signature which was waiting below. DOH!
When you say:
> It does not really mat
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009, R.G. Keen wrote:
I'm in full overthink/overresearch mode on this issue, preparatory
to ordering disks for my OS/zfs NAS build. So bear with me. I've
been reading manuals and code, but it's hard for me to come up to
speed on a new OS quickly.
The question(s) underlying th
I'm in full overthink/overresearch mode on this issue, preparatory to ordering
disks for my OS/zfs NAS build. So bear with me. I've been reading manuals and
code, but it's hard for me to come up to speed on a new OS quickly.
The question(s) underlying this thread seem to be:
(1) Does zfs raidz/
On Thu, Dec 31 at 2:14, Willy wrote:
Thanks, sounds like it should handle all but the
worst faults OK then; I believe the maximum retry
timeout is typically set to about 60 seconds in
consumer drives.
Are you sure about this? I thought these consumer level drives
would try indefinitely to car
> Thanks, sounds like it should handle all but the
> worst faults OK then; I believe the maximum retry
> timeout is typically set to about 60 seconds in
> consumer drives.
Are you sure about this? I thought these consumer level drives would try
indefinitely to carry out its operation. Even Sams
> "n" == Nathan writes:
n> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-Limited_Error_Recovery
This sounds silly. Does it actually work for you?
It seems like comparing 7 seconds to the normal 30 seconds would be
useless. Instead you want to compare (7 seconds * n levels * of
cargo-cult retry
On Dec 14, 2009, at 10:18 AM, Markus Kovero wrote:
How you can setup these values to fma?
UTSL
http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/cmd/fm/modules/common/zfs-diagnosis/zfs_de.c#775
Standard caveats for adjusting timeouts applies.
-- richard
__
drive choice, TLER/ERC/CCTL
> FMA (not ZFS, directly) looks for a number of
> failures over a period of time.
> By default that is 10 failures in 10 minutes. If you
> have an error that trips
> on TLER, the best it can see is 2-3 failures in 10
> minutes. The symptom
> you
> FMA (not ZFS, directly) looks for a number of
> failures over a period of time.
> By default that is 10 failures in 10 minutes. If you
> have an error that trips
> on TLER, the best it can see is 2-3 failures in 10
> minutes. The symptom
> you will see is that when these long timeouts happen,
>
On Dec 13, 2009, at 11:28 PM, Yaverot wrote:
Been lurking for about a week and a half and this is my first post...
--- bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Bob wrote:
Thanks. Any alternatives, other than using enterprise-level drives?
You can of course use normal cons
Been lurking for about a week and a half and this is my first post...
--- bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Bob wrote:
>> Thanks. Any alternatives, other than using enterprise-level drives?
>You can of course use normal consumer drives. Just don't expect them
>to recove
Actually, recent batches of WD drives don't let you change the TLER setting
anymore, which is why I was concerned about this.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.or
Note you don't get the better vibration control and other improvements the
enterprise drives have. So it's not exactly that easy. :)
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensol
Most manufacturers have a utility available that sets this behavior.
For WD drives, it's called WDTLER.EXE. You have to make a bootable USB stick to
run the app, but it is simple to change the setting to the enterprise behavior.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Bob wrote:
Thanks. Any alternatives, other than using enterprise-level drives?
You can of course use normal consumer drives. Just don't expect them
to recover from an read error very quickly.
Bob
--
Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems
Thanks. Any alternatives, other than using enterprise-level drives?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Bob wrote:
For a complete newbie, can someone simply answer the following: will
using non-enterprise level drives affect ZFS like it affects
hardware RAID?
Yes.
Bob
--
Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagi
I'm also planning on building a home file server using ZFS, and this issue has
also come to my attention during my research. I'm afraid that I'm a complete
ZFS/NAS/RAID newbie, so honestly half the things discussed in this thread went
over my head. :)
For a complete newbie, can someone simply a
> Mark Grant wrote:
> I don't think ZFS does any timing out.
> It's up to the drivers underneath to timeout and send
> an error back to
> ZFS - only they know what's reasonable for a given
> disk type and bus
> type.
I think that is the issue. By my reading, many (if not most) consumer drives
Thanks, sounds like it should handle all but the worst faults OK then; I
believe the maximum retry timeout is typically set to about 60 seconds in
consumer drives.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@ope
On Dec 10, 2009, at 8:36 AM, Mark Grant wrote:
From what I remember the problem with the hardware RAID controller
is that the long delay before the drive responds causes the drive
to be dropped from the RAID and then if you get another error on a
different drive while trying to repair the R
>From what I remember the problem with the hardware RAID controller is that the
>long delay before the drive responds causes the drive to be dropped from the
>RAID and then if you get another error on a different drive while trying to
>repair the RAID then that disk is also marked failed and you
Mark Grant wrote:
Yeah, this is my main concern with moving from my cheap Linux server with no
redundancy to ZFS RAID on OpenSolaris; I don't really want to have to pay twice
as much to buy the 'enterprise' disks which appear to be exactly the same
drives with a flag set in the firmware to lim
Mark Grant wrote:
Yeah, this is my main concern with moving from my cheap Linux server with no
redundancy to ZFS RAID on OpenSolaris; I don't really want to have to pay twice
as much to buy the 'enterprise' disks which appear to be exactly the same
drives with a flag set in the firmware to lim
Mark Grant wrote:
Yeah, this is my main concern with moving from my cheap Linux server with no
redundancy to ZFS RAID on OpenSolaris; I don't really want to have to pay twice
as much to buy the 'enterprise' disks which appear to be exactly the same
drives with a flag set in the firmware to lim
Yeah, this is my main concern with moving from my cheap Linux server with no
redundancy to ZFS RAID on OpenSolaris; I don't really want to have to pay twice
as much to buy the 'enterprise' disks which appear to be exactly the same
drives with a flag set in the firmware to limit read retries, but
http://www.stringliterals.com/?p=77
This guy talks about it too under "Hard Drives".
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Sorry I probably didn't make myself exactly clear.
Basically drives without particular TLER settings drop out of RAID randomly.
* Error Recovery - This is called various things by various manufacturers
(TLER, ERC, CCTL). In a Desktop drive, the goal is to do everything possible to
recover the d
Nathan wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-Limited_Error_Recovery
Is there a way except for buying enterprise (RAID specific) drives for a array
to use normal drives?
Does anyone have any success stories regarding a particular model?
The TLER cannot be edited on newer drives from Western
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-Limited_Error_Recovery
Is there a way except for buying enterprise (RAID specific) drives for a array
to use normal drives?
Does anyone have any success stories regarding a particular model?
The TLER cannot be edited on newer drives from Western Digital unfortu
64 matches
Mail list logo
