Tags: 0f12117

08/12/11

  07:50:08 am, by The Dreamer   , 216 words  
Categories: Hardware, Storage

ST31500341AS vs 0F12117

So, thinking about how the sync of the ST1500341AS to 0F12117 was slightly slower than the sync of 0F12117 to 0F12117, I wondered what specs about the new drive would edge out.

Specs for the ST31500341AS that I could track down include:

Formatted capacity               1500GB
Guaranteed sectors               2930277168
Heads                            8
Discs                            4
Bytes per sector                 512
CHS                              63/16/16383
Recording density                1462 kbits/in max
Track density                    190 ktracks/in avg
Areal density                    277 Gbits/in2 avg
Spindle Speed                    7200 RPM
Internal data transfer rate      1709Mbps max
Sustained data transfer rate OD  135 MBps max
I/O data-transfer rate           300 MBps max
Cache buffer                     32MB
Average Latency                  4.16 ms
Track-to-track seek time         <0.8ms read
                                 <1.0ms write
Average seek, read               <8.5ms
Average seek, write              <10.0ms

Specs for the 0F12117 that I could track down include:

Recording density                1443 Kbpi
Track density                    285 Ktpi
Max areal density                411 Gbits/in2
Data buffer                      32MB
Rotational Speed                 Coolspin (5940 RPM)
Media transfer rate              1366 Mbps max
Typ Sustained transfer rate      136 MBps max
Interface transfer rate          600 MBps max
Heads                            6
Discs                            3
Bytes per sector                 512
CHS                              63/16/16383
Total Logical Data Bytes         2000398934016 bytes
Number of sectors                3907029168
Track-to-track seek time         0.5ms typ 0.7ms max read
                                 0.6ms typ 0.8ms max write
Average seek, read               <8.5ms
Average seek, write              <10.0ms
Average Latency                  5.05 ms

Probably all comes down to recording density....the Hitachi 2TB having more data stored on in less area than the Seagate 1.5TB, makes the Hitachi faster than the Seagate....

08/11/11

  07:47:49 am, by The Dreamer   , 718 words  
Categories: Hardware, Software, Computer, Storage

The storage upgrades on Orac and Zen begin

Because one of the 1TB RAID1 drives was starting to fail...I was looking at options to replace it.

I original had a plan to upgraded one of my 1.5TB RAID1's to a pair of 2TB drives....freeing one of the 1.5TB drives to test out the OCE/ORLM feature of the RR622 & TR5M-BP on Zen...converting the current 2x1.5TB RAID0 to a 3x1.5TB RAID5 (or perhaps 4x1.5TB) Oops!Backup seems to be doing well and its filling up the space, I'm sure there's a setting to tell it not to, but not an issue at the moment. Guess I should buy it before the 30 day trial runs out.

At first I was looking at new 1TB drives....though for $20 more I could get 2TB drives, the same kind as the 6x2TB RAID10. The 1TB and 1.5TB drives have been 7200RPM (as were all previous drives)....the Hitachi's are the first of the greener drives....5940RPM. Given that I'm doing PM RAID in a first gen PCI Express box, I'm probably still not seeing the full potential of the greener drives.

Full story »

07/09/11

  09:03:13 pm, by The Dreamer   , 1290 words  
Categories: Hardware, Software, Computer, Storage

New arrays on Orac

This is an owed post (of over 3 months in the making....) I had thought of lots of things to write for this since I meant to write it, but didn't write anything. And, now its so old...that I'm just going to be really terse....

&#58;&#108;&#97;&#108;&#97;&#108;&#97;&#58;

The lead in to this posting was Worked on Orac yesterday. So, I got those 5 2TB drives...and first tried to make it RAID5 using mdadm. And, started filling it up....though the performance didn't seem to be much better using XFS, plus the new backuppc seemed to have regressed on handling XFS.... so I heard about ZFS on Linux....as kernel modules that do the taint. And, tried out RAIDZ, with its variable striping to maybe to do better on performance. It seemed nice, but then stack dumps filling up my logs....rebooted and then did a zpool scrub, and it went to work fixing lots and lots of errors, and then a few unrecoverable errors.

Guess no ZFS, and the XFS didn't seem enough of a gain to make it different from everything else. Even though there's one really big problem with ext4. Resizing it causes corruption. Supposed to be fixed now, but before I switched to the new array, I grew the backuppc volume for 3.75TB to 3.8TB, offline...and it resulted in corruption still.

So, I was making the new backuppc volume the full size of the array. As I mulled over the situtation...I decided that I would try RAID10, sure that wouldn't get as huge a boost over the old RAID6 array of 1.5TB, but it would still be an increase...and no idea what I'm going to do when I need more space. But, first I had to get a 6th 2TB drive to do RAID10. Plus it would mean that I would need to do something else with the 1.5TB drives. One was going to have to come out. Sure it could run degraded initially (though did find that it would come back after a reboot, guess the boot making degraded arrays come online...only does it for OS filesystems. Though the boot get's stuck because it can't mount filesystems and the recovery of mounting just doesn't work still. Getting into single user is such a pain too. Though after I broke my sudoers file recently, I turned off hiddenmenu.

The hard part about making the RAID10, was figuring out the ordering of devs...so that it was mirror across the eSATA channels and stripping with in. There's only 2 channels, and 6 drives in this array...so figured that was the best way to go. Though now that I've realized that its only PCI express 1.0, not sure if that was the best way to go. Though to try the other, would call for me to get 8 drives? And, who knows what the future holds for supporting backuppc....

internal bitmap on doesn't seem to degrade the RAID10 as much as RAID5 or RAID6, so I have that turned on now.

Now there was the question of what to do with the 4 remaining drive bays and the 4 1.5TB drives. Would I got with another RAID10, a couple of RAID1...would I concat them into the LVM for growth or make them separate.

Well, on the old 1TB array was my old MMC volume, which needed more space and part of the 5x1.5TB RAID6 was a backup volume...also in need of more space. I decided that I would go with two separate RAID1s using the Seagate 1.5TB drives (I had pulled the Samsung 1.5TB to make it degraded....that drive has since been hooked up to TARDIS for local backups).

Around this time, my Roku appeared...and I went through the various attempts to map a network drive to it for local content. Settling on the HSTI Media Stick and its 1TB maximum. I settled on going with 2 1.5TB RAID1 arrays. One of them was made fully available to be the new MMC volume. And, the other...I made a 1TB volume (called TARDIS) for the HSTI Media Stick, and the rest became the new backup volume.

The old 1TB RAID1 array stayed online, until it was recently repurposed into the volume for Time Machine backups (only 931GB).

Now I've been debating playing around with external bitmaps and/or external journaling to see if I can get more performance. But, external bitmaps go away after a reboot, and that just seems to be a bug that isn't going to get fixed anytime soon. external journaling would require me to find some devices for that....so I got the idea of PCI Compact Flash adapter and some compact flash cards....I have a couple of the PCI Compact Flash adapters....and I do have a few compact flash cards around. Though when I was playing around with ReadyBoost on Zen, I found they weren't really that great on speed. And, I was going to want to get as much speed out of things as I could here....so I did some checking and now I'm waiting to get around to buying some 600x CF cards to get around to trying this. The fastest card I have available in my collection is a 133x. And, I don't recall why I bought that one. Ones earlier than that would be left overs from when I had my PowerShot S20, then an REB1200 and then a Nikon Coolpix 5700.

These days, I'm all about the SD cards for my digital cameras (Eye-Fi), though been thinking of getting an ultracompact (and wearing my holster less often)....and some that I've looked at use MicroSD cards. Don't have any extra Class 10 ones laying about though....though I do have a couple of Class 6 8GB cards that need a home (I got them in a 2for1 sale, and the need for 1 didn't happen as planned....and when I do get around to getting that device, I'm sure I'll probably cave and get a 16GB or 32GB Class 10 MicroSD card.)

Full story »

Now instead of subjecting some poor random forum to a long rambling thought, I will try to consolidate those things into this blog where they can be more easily ignored profess to be collected thoughts from my mind.

Latest Poopli Updaters -- http://lkc.me/poop

bloglovin

There are 20 years 3 months 27 days 13 hours 56 minutes and 50 seconds until the end of time.
And, it has been 4 years 9 months 6 minutes and 6 seconds since The Doctor saved us all from the end of the World!

Search

September 2017
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
 << <   > >>
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  
Google

Linkblog

  XML Feeds

Who's Online?

  • Guest Users: 2
This seal is issued to lawrencechen.net by StopTheHacker Inc.
powered by b2evolution free blog software

hosted by
Green Web Hosting! This site hosted by DreamHost.

monitored by
Monitored by eXternalTest
SiteUptime Web Site Monitoring Service
website uptime