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 <jeff.alli...@allygray.2y.net> 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 <jeff.alli...@allygray.2y.net> 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 <jeff.alli...@allygray.2y.net> wrote: >>> Yeah started to do that last night got sidetracked... >>> >>> On 20 March 2014 11:42, Jake Anderson <ya...@vapourforge.com> 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 <ya...@vapourforge.com> 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 <jeff.alli...@allygray.2y.net> >>>>>>> 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 <jeff.alli...@allygray.2y.net> >>>>>>>> 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 <ya...@vapourforge.com> 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 <ya...@vapourforge.com> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jeff.alli...@allygray.2y.net> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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" <gr...@exemail.com.au> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Mar 2014, at 3:14 pm, Jeff Allison >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jeff.alli...@allygray.2y.net> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it the O41072911.ROM? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you use flashrom of the dos disk thingo. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 March 2014 14:06, gr0ve <gr...@exemail.com.au> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>> gr...@exemail.com.au IT consulting, security, >>>>>>>>>>>>> programming >>>>>>>>>>>>> The more an answer costs, the more respect it carries. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> Rachel Polanskis Kingswood, Greater Western >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sydney, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Australia >>>>>>>>>>>>> gr...@exemail.com.au 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
