On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Jeff Allison <jeff.alli...@allygray.2y.net> 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 <jeff.alli...@allygray.2y.net> wrote: >> Yeah you're probably right but I have 2 greens so.... >> >> On 21 March 2014 14:46, Kevin Shackleton <krshackle...@gmail.com> 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" <jeff.alli...@allygray.2y.net> 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 <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 > -- > 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
