t == taemun tae...@gmail.com writes:
t I would note that the Seagate 2TB LP has a 0.32% Annualised
t Failure Rate.
bullshit.
pgpsMvTxl5Ghd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
On 2 December 2010 16:17, Miles Nordin car...@ivy.net wrote:
t == taemun tae...@gmail.com writes:
t I would note that the Seagate 2TB LP has a 0.32% Annualised
t Failure Rate.
bullshit.
Apologies, should have read: Specified Annualised Failure Rate.
Not sure where you got this figure from, the Barracuda Green
(http://www.seagate.com/docs/pdf/datasheet/disc/ds1720_barracuda_green.pdf) is
a different drive to the one we've been talking about in this thread
(http://www.seagate.com/docs/pdf/datasheet/disc/ds_barracuda_lp.pdf).
I would note
On 29 November 2010 20:39, GMAIL piotr.jasiukaj...@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone use Seagate ST32000542AS disks with ZFS?
I wonder if the performance is not that ugly as with WD Green WD20EARS
disks.
I'm using these drives for one of the vdevs in my pool. The pool was created
with ashift=12
Thanks, I need to try modified zpool than.
On Nov 29, 2010, at 10:50 AM, taemun wrote:
On 29 November 2010 20:39, GMAIL piotr.jasiukaj...@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone use Seagate ST32000542AS disks with ZFS?
I wonder if the performance is not that ugly as with WD Green WD20EARS disks.
On Mon, November 29, 2010 04:50, taemun wrote:
I would urge you to consider a 2^n + p number of disks. For raidz, p = 1,
so an acceptable number of total drives is 3, 5 or 9. raidz2 has two
parity drives, hence 4, 6 or 10. These vdev widths ensure that the data
blocks are divided into nicer
I'm using these drives for one of the vdevs in my pool. The pool was created
with ashift=12 (zpool binary
from http://digitaldj.net/2010/11/03/zfs-zpool-v28-openindiana-b147-4k-drives-and-you/),
which limits the minimum block size to 4KB, the same as the physical block
size on these drives. I
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Krunal Desai mov...@gmail.com wrote:
The Seagate datasheet for those parts report 512-byte sectors. What is
the deal with the ST32000542AS: native 512-byte sectors, native
4k-byte sector with selectable emulation, or native 4k-byte sectors
with 512-byte sector
On 30 November 2010 03:09, Krunal Desai mov...@gmail.com wrote:
I assume it either:
1. does a really good job of 512-byte emulation that results in little
to no performance degradation
(
http://consumer.media.seagate.com/2010/06/the-digital-den/advanced-format-drives-with-smartalign/
