search for: sd15

...llowed to coexist from the pool itself. My test case isn''t ideal per se, but I added a local 9GB SCSI (80) drive for a log, and added to LUNs for the pool itself. You''ll see from the below that while the log device is pegged at 15MB/sec (sd5), my directory list request on devices sd15 and sd16 never are answered. I tried this with both no-cache-flush enabled and off, with negligible difference. Is there anyway to force a better balance of reads/writes during heavy writes? extended device statistics device r/s w/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b fd0...

...3 server kernel: Nov 21 06:08:33 server kernel: ide: failed opcode was: unknown Nov 21 06:08:33 server kernel: hda: no DRQ after issuing WRITE Nov 21 06:08:34 server kernel: ide0: reset: success Found one website that told me too try hdparm -i to see whats up: /dev/hda: Model=ST3500320AS, FwRev=SD15, SerialNo= Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec Fixed DTR>10Mbs RotSpdTol>.5% } RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=0, SectSize=0, ECCbytes=4 BuffType=unknown, BuffSize=0kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=off CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=16514064, LBA=yes, LBAsects=268435455 IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min...

HI All, I have a dilemma and I would appreciate advice 1. Get a good size case, mobo, processor, etc and put 8 hard drives it in and RAID them. (yes an 8 port SATA mobo). Running CentOS. or 2. Get an eSATA enclosure that has room for 8 or 10 drives and just connect it to box? I know that RAID is not a full proof backup, but I am looking for a solution to store all of my data, projects, music,

...0.0 99.3 0.0 12698.3 0.0 32.2 324.5 0 97 sd11 0.3 105.9 38.4 12753.3 0.0 31.8 299.9 0 99 sd12 0.0 100.2 0.0 12095.9 0.0 26.4 263.8 0 82 sd13 0.0 102.3 0.0 12959.7 0.0 31.0 303.4 0 94 sd14 0.1 97.2 12.8 12291.8 0.0 30.4 312.0 0 92 sd15 0.0 99.7 0.0 12057.5 0.0 26.0 260.8 0 80 sd16 0.1 98.8 12.8 12634.3 0.0 31.9 322.1 0 96 sd17 0.0 99.0 0.0 12522.2 0.0 30.9 312.0 0 94 sd18 0.2 102.1 25.6 12934.1 0.0 29.7 290.4 0 90 sd19 0.0 103.4 0.0 12486.3 0.0 32.0 309.1 0 97...

...41:19 san sata: [ID 514995 kern.info] SATA Gen1 signaling speed (1.5Gbps) Jan 17 06:41:19 san sata: [ID 349649 kern.info] Supported queue depth 32 Jan 17 06:41:19 san sata: [ID 349649 kern.info] capacity = 1953525168 sectors Jan 17 06:41:19 san scsi: [ID 193665 kern.info] sd15 at marvell88sx1: target 5 lun 0 Jan 17 06:41:19 san genunix: [ID 936769 kern.info] sd15 is /pci at 0,0/pci10de,376 at a/pci1033,125 at 0/pci11ab,11ab at 6/disk at 5,0 Jan 17 06:41:19 san genunix: [ID 408114 kern.info] /pci at 0,0/pci10de,376 at a/pci1033,125 at 0/pci11ab,11ab at 6/disk at 5,0 (s...

I have just recently (physically) moved a system with 16 hard drives (for the array) and 1 OS drive; and in doing so, I needed to pull out the 16 drives so that it would be light enough for me to lift. When I plugged the drives back in, initially, it went into a panic-reboot loop. After doing some digging, I deleted the file /etc/zfs/zpool.cache. When I try to import the pool using the zpool

Under Solaris 10 u6 , No matter how I configured my ARECA 1261ML Raid card I got errors on all drives that result from SCSI timeout errors. yoda:~ # tail -f /var/adm/messages Jan 9 11:03:47 yoda.asc.edu scsi: [ID 107833 kern.notice] Requested Block: 239683776 Error Block: 239683776 Jan 9 11:03:47 yoda.asc.edu scsi: [ID 107833 kern.notice] Vendor: Seagate

Greetings to all. I am currently a bit of a newbie in regards using Linux and Samba. I have worked for several years in the IT/digital divide sector of the nonprofit world (particularly in regards to utilizing used and refurbished hardware). I am have a couple of CompTIA certs. (A+ and N+) and some experience administering Windows 2000 Advanced Server. Anyway to my question.... I am

G''day, all, So, I''ve decided to migrate my home server from Linux+swRAID+LVM to Solaris+ZFS, because it seems to hold much better promise for data integrity, which is my primary concern. However, naturally, I decided to do some benchmarks in the process, and I don''t understand why the results are what they are. I though I had a reasonable understanding of ZFS, but now

After applying 125205-07 on two X4500 machines running Sol10U4 and removing "set sata:sata_func_enable = 0x5" from /etc/system to re-enable NCQ, I am again observing drive disconnect error messages. This in spite of the patch description which claims multiple fixes in this area: 6587133 repeated DMA command timeouts and device resets on x4500 6538627 x4500 message logs contain multiple