Checked it's the right disk.
On 22 March 2014 18:53, Lubos Rendek <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Jeff Allison > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Now here's a strange one the drive is now back in it's usb case. >> >> [jeff@nas ~]$ dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/sdd/bonnie++/test.tmp bs=4k >> count=2000000 && sync >> 2000000+0 records in >> 2000000+0 records out >> 8192000000 bytes (8.2 GB) copied, 248.397 s, 33.0 MB/s >> >> It's now 8x faster. As fast as any of the usb disks... > Interesting. Your are bending the laws of physics :-) > > Just make sure that your test disk is really mounted under /mnt/sdd/ > so you are not accidentally writing to different block device. >> >> I'm confused. >> >> There isn't some code in the firmware now days that knows when you've >> removed a disk from a USB case? >> >> On 21 March 2014 14:55, Jeff Allison <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Yeah you're probably right but I have 2 greens so.... >>> >>> On 21 March 2014 14:46, Kevin Shackleton <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> We're told these days that we should be using NAS rated drives like the WD >>>> Red. Cheers, Kevin >>>> >>>> On 21/03/2014 8:41 AM, "Jeff Allison" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> opps forgot the list >>>>> >>>>> Definatly the disk... >>>>> >>>>> [jeff@nas ~]$dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/sdj/bonnie/test.tmp bs=4k >>>>> count=2000000 && sync && dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/sdd/bonnie/test.tmp >>>>> bs=4k count=2000000 && sync >>>>> >>>>> 2000000+0 records in >>>>> 2000000+0 records outDefinatly the disk... >>>>> >>>>> [jeff@nas ~]$dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/sdj/bonnie/test.tmp bs=4k >>>>> count=2000000 && sync && dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/sdd/bonnie/test.tmp >>>>> bs=4k count=2000000 && sync >>>>> >>>>> 2000000+0 records in >>>>> 2000000+0 records out >>>>> 8192000000 bytes (8.2 GB) copied, 231.778 s, 35.3 MB/s <-- WD Green >>>>> RMA I got back yesterday. >>>>> >>>>> 2000000+0 records in >>>>> 2000000+0 records out >>>>> 8192000000 bytes (8.2 GB) copied, 1818.18 s, 4.5 MB/s <-- Dud one. >>>>> 8192000000 bytes (8.2 GB) copied, 231.778 s, 35.3 MB/s <-- WD Green >>>>> RMA I got back yesterday. >>>>> >>>>> 2000000+0 records in >>>>> 2000000+0 records out >>>>> 8192000000 bytes (8.2 GB) copied, 1818.18 s, 4.5 MB/s <-- Dud one. >>>>> >>>>> On 21 March 2014 11:40, Jeff Allison <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> > Definatly the disk... >>>>> > >>>>> > [jeff@nas ~]$dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/sdj/bonnie/test.tmp bs=4k >>>>> > count=2000000 && sync && dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/sdd/bonnie/test.tmp >>>>> > bs=4k count=2000000 && sync >>>>> > >>>>> > 2000000+0 records in >>>>> > 2000000+0 records out >>>>> > 8192000000 bytes (8.2 GB) copied, 231.778 s, 35.3 MB/s <-- WD Green >>>>> > RMA I got back yesterday. >>>>> > >>>>> > 2000000+0 records in >>>>> > 2000000+0 records out >>>>> > 8192000000 bytes (8.2 GB) copied, 1818.18 s, 4.5 MB/s <-- Dud one. >>>>> > >>>>> > On 20 March 2014 13:15, Jeff Allison <[email protected]> >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >> I'm watching the format running and the write speed still seems limited >>>>> >> to 4MB/s >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I'll run some tests when it finally gets formatted. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Perhaps a dud disk? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On 20 March 2014 11:42, Jeff Allison <[email protected]> >>>>> >> wrote: >>>>> >>> Yeah started to do that last night got sidetracked... >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> On 20 March 2014 11:42, Jake Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>> It is slower than I'd think it should be, but like I said, you should >>>>> >>>> ask on >>>>> >>>> a mdadm list for advice from people who will really know. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> On 20/03/14 11:25, Jeff Allison wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So is 4MB/s acceptable? for 4x2TB raid 5 resync? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 20 March 2014 10:59, Jake Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I'll wager its mostly due to not needing to resize and re-parity >>>>> >>>>>> one >>>>> >>>>>> drive. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 20/03/14 10:58, Jeff Allison wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> I failed the suspect disk out of the array and now the rebuild is >>>>> >>>>>>> 16000K/sec 4x faster. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Strange. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Time to do some disk testing... >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> On 19 March 2014 14:59, Jeff Allison >>>>> >>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> I ran hdparm... >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> [root@nas ~]# hdparm -tT /dev/sdd <-- dud disk >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> /dev/sdd: >>>>> >>>>>>>> Timing cached reads: 2318 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1158.86 >>>>> >>>>>>>> MB/sec >>>>> >>>>>>>> Timing buffered disk reads: 2 MB in 25.35 seconds = 80.79 >>>>> >>>>>>>> kB/sec >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> [root@nas ~]# hdparm -tT /dev/sdc <-- good disk >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> /dev/sdc: >>>>> >>>>>>>> Timing cached reads: 2470 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1234.85 >>>>> >>>>>>>> MB/sec >>>>> >>>>>>>> Timing buffered disk reads: 296 MB in 3.01 seconds = 98.35 >>>>> >>>>>>>> MB/sec >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> Not much in it. >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> On 19 March 2014 14:23, Jeff Allison >>>>> >>>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> The disk sector sizes are the same on all the disks. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Logical Sector size: 512 bytes >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Physical Sector size: 4096 bytes >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is chunk size stripe size? >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> [root@nas ~]# mdadm --detail /dev/md0 >>>>> >>>>>>>>> /dev/md0: >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Version : 1.2 >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Creation Time : Fri Feb 21 09:33:55 2014 >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Raid Level : raid5 >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Array Size : 3905985536 (3725.04 GiB 3999.73 GB) >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Used Dev Size : 1952992768 (1862.52 GiB 1999.86 GB) >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Raid Devices : 4 >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Total Devices : 4 >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Persistence : Superblock is persistent >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Update Time : Wed Mar 19 14:22:35 2014 >>>>> >>>>>>>>> State : clean, reshaping >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Active Devices : 4 >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Working Devices : 4 >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Failed Devices : 0 >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Spare Devices : 0 >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Layout : left-symmetric >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Chunk Size : 512K >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Reshape Status : 28% complete >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Delta Devices : 1, (3->4) >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Name : nas.allygray.2y.net:0 (local to host >>>>> >>>>>>>>> nas.allygray.2y.net) >>>>> >>>>>>>>> UUID : 1a122cbe:ada65085:680e451c:180c7689 >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Events : 21723 >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Number Major Minor RaidDevice State >>>>> >>>>>>>>> 0 8 17 0 active sync >>>>> >>>>>>>>> /dev/sdb1 >>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1 8 33 1 active sync >>>>> >>>>>>>>> /dev/sdc1 >>>>> >>>>>>>>> 3 8 1 2 active sync >>>>> >>>>>>>>> /dev/sda1 >>>>> >>>>>>>>> 4 8 49 3 active sync >>>>> >>>>>>>>> /dev/sdd1 >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> When I created the partitions I used the -a optimal which I >>>>> >>>>>>>>> thought >>>>> >>>>>>>>> sorted that? >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 19 March 2014 14:11, Jake Anderson <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> its probably *madly* seeking which is why its so slow. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I wonder, what is the block size you are using on the disk and >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> stripe >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> size of your array? >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If you are read modify writing a 4K disk in 512k blocks it'll >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> be dog >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> slow. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 19/03/14 14:00, Jeff Allison wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The thing I find strange is that in iostat the disk shows as >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 100% at >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 3/4 >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> MB/s. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I wonder how iostat decides on the percent? >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 19 March 2014 10:53, Jake Anderson <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This isn't going to be an issue with sata vs whatever (though >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I do >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> suggest >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> running in ahci mode if thats an option) >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The issue is probably going to be how mdadm is growing the >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> array, >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> need to do a buttload of disk access to do that reading and >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> writing >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> every >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> sector on every disk and trying to keep everything in a >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> consistent >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> state >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> while doing so. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know if it applies to whatever raid level you are >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> using but >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> something like an --assume-clean option you can pass it? >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also suggest asking in the mdadm list or perhaps IRC. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1056831 might be of >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> interest. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/03/14 20:02, Rachel Polanskis wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Mar 2014, at 6:46 pm, Jeff Allison >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That's installed unfortunately didn't fix my problem. How >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> badly >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> configured >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> does a disk need to be to only run at 4mb >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry for the suck eggs question, but you did enable all the >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> features in >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the BIOS e.g. turning on SATA II 3gbps support, >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> write cache disable etc? In the URL link to the forum >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> below they >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> all the optimum settings. I am using >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> WD RED NAS drives (2x2tb) and Seagate 3Tb drives (latest >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> model) in >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> my >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> system so similar to yours.... >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> rachel >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/03/2014 3:43 PM, "Rachel Polanskis" >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Mar 2014, at 3:14 pm, Jeff Allison >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it the O41072911.ROM? >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you use flashrom of the dos disk thingo. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 March 2014 14:06, gr0ve <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seriously, you should flash the BIOS! I get 80mbps reads >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on ZFS >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and depending, 30-40mbps on writes. Without the BIOS mod, >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are getting only IDE speeds there. The original BIOS holds >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> back and it is perfectly safe. The BIOS ensures AHCI >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> support is >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> operational >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well as the 3gbps SATA II bus. Once you see the >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> improvement, >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can choose to also select write cache enabled|disabled >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> although >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is best with a UPS ;) >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rachel >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The HP BIOS version is the O41072911.ROM as you suggest. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You need this to install the "theBay" ROM as well. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The process is shown online, but in short you copy the HP >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> BIOS >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> using >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> DOS/windows installer to a USB stick then copy the "theBay" >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> rom >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> image >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> over >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> top. You could try to "dd" the image but it does some weird >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> trickery >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> make >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the stick bootable for installing the BIOS. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You can look for TheBay_Microserver_Bios_041.rar online. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The source information is: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.avforums.com/threads/hp-n36l-n40l-n54l-microserver-updated-ahci-bios-support.1521657/ >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And it has all the guff on getting the BIOS onto your N54L >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> also >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> tips >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> on how to configure it. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I have all the files if you need them.... >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again, these are terrific little servers. It has an >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> internal >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> USB >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> port so I just loaded FreeNAS >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> onto an 8Gb USB stick and boot from there. All the internal >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> SATA >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> disks >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> are in ZFS disk pools which >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> do my bidding. As I use ZFS, I went with 8gb ECC memory. I >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> also >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> added an >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> additional Gigabit Ethernet adaptor as the built in broadcom >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> general >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> networking and I run the second Gig-E port with Jumbo Frames >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> using >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> gigabit >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> crossover (there is such a thing) >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to a Mac Mini with the thunderbolt port running Gig-E and >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> doing >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> iSCSI! >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The Mac Mini runs esxi 5.5 and >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> all the data stores (running various species of Linux) >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> hosted off >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> HP-N54L. It is like a little tiny >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> SAN, small but perfectly formed.... >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> rachel >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Rachel Polanskis Kingswood, Greater Western >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sydney, >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Australia >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] IT consulting, security, >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> programming >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The more an answer costs, the more respect it >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> carries. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Rachel Polanskis Kingswood, Greater Western >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sydney, >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Australia >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] IT consulting, security, >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> programming >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The more an answer costs, the more respect it >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> carries. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://slug.org.au/ >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Subscription info and FAQs: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ >>>>> Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html >> -- >> SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ >> Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
