Actually, last time I tried the whole AF (4k) thing, it's performance
was worse than woeful.
But admittedly, that was a little while ago.
The drives were the seagate green barracuda IIRC, and performance for
just about everything was 20MB/s per spindle or worse, when it should
have been closer to 100MB/s when streaming. Things were worse still when
I'm actually looking to put in something larger than the 3*2TB drives
(triple mirror for read perf) this pool has in it - preferably 3 * 4TB
drives. (I don't want to put in more spindles - just replace the current
I might just have to bite the bullet and try something with current SW. :).
On 05/29/12 08:54 PM, John Martin wrote:
On 05/28/12 08:48, Nathan Kroenert wrote:
Looking to get some larger drives for one of my boxes. It runs
exclusively ZFS and has been using Seagate 2TB units up until now (which
are 512 byte sector).
Anyone offer up suggestions of either 3 or preferably 4TB drives that
actually work well with ZFS out of the box? (And not perform like
I'm using Oracle Solaris 11 , and would prefer not to have to use a
hacked up zpool to create something with ashift=12.
Are you replacing a failed drive or creating a new pool?
I had a drive in a mirrored pool recently fail. Both
drives were 1TB Seagate ST310005N1A1AS-RK with 512 byte sectors.
All the 1TB Seagate boxed drives I could find with the same
part number on the box (with factory seals in place)
were really ST1000DM003-9YN1 with 512e/4196p. Just being
cautious, I ended up migrating the pools over to a pair
of the new drives. The pools were created with ashift=12
$ zdb -C | grep ashift
Resilvering the three pools concurrently went fairly quickly:
$ zpool status
scan: resilvered 223G in 2h14m with 0 errors on Tue May 22
scan: resilvered 145G in 4h13m with 0 errors on Tue May 22
scan: resilvered 153G in 3h44m with 0 errors on Tue May 22
What performance problem do you expect?
zfs-discuss mailing list