As a home user, here are my thoughts.
WD = ignore (TLER issues, parking issues, etc)
I recently built up a server on Osol running Samsung 1.5TB drives. They are
green, but don't seem to have the irritating features found on the WD
green drives. They are 5400RPM, but seem to transfer data
Changing the sector size (if it's possible at all) would require a
reformat of the drive.
The WD drives only support a 4K sector but they pretend to have 512byte
sectors. I don't think they need to format the drive when changing to 4K
sectors. A non-aligned write requires a read-modify-write
This would require a low-level re-format and would significantly
reduce the available space if it was possible at all.
I don't think it is possible.
WD has a jumper,
but is there explicitly to work with WindowsXP, and is not a real way
to dumb down the drive to 512.
All it does is offset
Can you give us release numbers that confirm that this is 'automatic'. It is
my understanding that the last available public release of OpenSolaris does not
do this.
On Oct 5, 2010, at 8:52 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
ZFS already aligns the beginning of data areas to 4KB offsets from the
If you're spending upwards of $30,000 on a storage system, you probably
shouldn't skimp on the most important component. You might as well be
complaining that ECC ram costs more. Don't be ridiculous. For one, this is a
disk backup system, not a fileserver, and TLER is far from as critic al
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:49 PM, casper@sun.com wrote:
I'm not sure that that is correct; the drive works on naive clients but I
believe it can reveal its true colors.
The drive reports 512 byte sectors to all hosts. AFAIK there's no way
to make it report 4k sectors.
-B
--
Brandon High
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:49 PM, casper@sun.com wrote:
I'm not sure that that is correct; the drive works on naive clients but I
believe it can reveal its true colors.
The drive reports 512 byte sectors to all hosts. AFAIK there's no way
to make it report 4k sectors.
Too bad because it
casper@sun.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:49 PM, casper@sun.com wrote:
I'm not sure that that is correct; the drive works on naive clients but I
believe it can reveal its true colors.
The drive reports 512 byte sectors to all hosts. AFAIK there's no way
to make it
www.solarisinternals.com has always been a community. It never was hosted by
Sun, and it's not hosted by Oracle. True, many of the contributors were Sun
employees, but not so many remain at Oracle. If it's out if date, I suspect
that's because the original contributors are too busy doing other
On Tue, October 5, 2010 17:20, Richard Elling wrote:
On Oct 5, 2010, at 2:06 PM, Michael DeMan wrote:
On Oct 5, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
Well, here it's about 60% up and for 150 drives, that makes a wee
difference...
Understood on 1.6 times cost, especially for
On Tue, October 5, 2010 16:47, casper@sun.com wrote:
My immediate reaction to this is time to avoid WD drives for a while;
until things shake out and we know what's what reliably.
But, um, what do we know about say the Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 ($70),
the SAMSUNG Spinpoint F3 1TB ($75), or
TLER (the ability of the drive to timeout a command)
I went and got what detailed documentation I could on a couple of the
Seagate drives last night, and I couldn't find anything on how they
behaved in that sort of error cases. (I believe TLER is a WD-specific
term, but I didn't just
- Original Message -
On Tue, October 5, 2010 17:20, Richard Elling wrote:
On Oct 5, 2010, at 2:06 PM, Michael DeMan wrote:
On Oct 5, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
Well, here it's about 60% up and for 150 drives, that makes a wee
difference...
Understood on
Hi all
I just discovered WD Black drives are rumored not to
be set to allow TLER.
Yep: http://opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messageID=501159#501159
Enterprise drives will cost
about 60% more, and on a large install, that means a
lot of money...
True, sometimes more than twice the
ag == Andrew Gabriel andrew.gabr...@oracle.com writes:
ag Having now read a number of forums about these, there's a
ag strong feeling WD screwed up by not providing a switch to
ag disable pseudo 512b access so you can use the 4k native.
this reporting lie is no different from SSD's
dd == David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net writes:
dd Richard Elling said ZFS handles the 4k real 512byte fake
dd drives okay now in default setups
There are two steps to handling it well. one is to align the start of
partitions to 4kB, and apparently on Solaris (thanks to all the
Hi all
I just discovered WD Black drives are rumored not to be set to allow TLER. Does
anyone know how much performance impact the lack of TLER might have on a large
pool? Choosing Enterprise drives will cost about 60% more, and on a large
install, that means a lot of money...
Vennlige
I'm not sure on the TLER issues by themselves, but after the nightmares I have
gone through dealing with the 'green drives', which have both the TLER issue
and the IntelliPower head parking issues, I would just stay away from it all
entirely and pay extra for the 'RAID Editiion' drives.
Just
Western Digital RE3 WD1002FBYS 1TB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5 Internal
Hard Drive -Bare Drive
are only $129.
vs. $89 for the 'regular' black drives.
45% higher price, but it is my understanding that the 'RAID Edition'
ones also are physically constructed for longer life, lower vibration
On Oct 5, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
Western Digital RE3 WD1002FBYS 1TB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5 Internal
Hard Drive -Bare Drive
are only $129.
vs. $89 for the 'regular' black drives.
45% higher price, but it is my understanding that the 'RAID Edition'
ones also
On Tue, October 5, 2010 15:30, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
I just discovered WD Black drives are rumored not to be set to allow TLER.
Does anyone know how much performance impact the lack of TLER might have
on a large pool? Choosing Enterprise drives will cost about 60% more, and
on a large
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk r...@karlsbakk.netwrote:
Western Digital RE3 WD1002FBYS 1TB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5 Internal
Hard Drive -Bare Drive
are only $129.
vs. $89 for the 'regular' black drives.
45% higher price, but it is my understanding that the
My immediate reaction to this is time to avoid WD drives for a while;
until things shake out and we know what's what reliably.
But, um, what do we know about say the Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 ($70),
the SAMSUNG Spinpoint F3 1TB ($75), or the HITACHI Deskstar 1TB 3.5
($70)?
I've seen several
On Oct 5, 2010, at 2:47 PM, casper@sun.com wrote:
I've seen several important features when selecting a drive for
a mirror:
TLER (the ability of the drive to timeout a command)
sector size (native vs virtual)
power use (specifically at home)
performance
On Oct 5, 2010, at 2:06 PM, Michael DeMan wrote:
On Oct 5, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
Western Digital RE3 WD1002FBYS 1TB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5 Internal
Hard Drive -Bare Drive
are only $129.
vs. $89 for the 'regular' black drives.
45% higher price, but it is
Michael DeMan wrote:
The WD 1TB 'enterprise' drives are still 512 sector size and safe to
use, who knows though, maybe they just started shipping with 4K sector
size as I write this e-mail?
Another annoying thing with the whole 4K sector size, is what happens
when you need to replace drives
On 2010-Oct-06 05:59:06 +0800, Michael DeMan sola...@deman.com wrote:
Another annoying thing with the whole 4K sector size, is what happens
when you need to replace drives next year, or the year after?
About the only mitigation needed is to ensure that any partitioning is
based on multiples of
Hi upfront, and thanks for the valuable information.
On Oct 5, 2010, at 4:12 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
Another annoying thing with the whole 4K sector size, is what happens
when you need to replace drives next year, or the year after?
About the only mitigation needed is to ensure that any
ZFS already aligns the beginning of data areas to 4KB offsets from the label.
For modern OpenSolaris and Solaris implementations, the default starting
block for partitions is also aligned to 4KB.
On Oct 5, 2010, at 6:36 PM, Michael DeMan wrote:
Hi upfront, and thanks for the valuable
29 matches
Mail list logo
