search for: tler

...h NCQ 500GB 7200rpm 16MB cache Serial ATA II-300 3. Western Digital 500GB SATAII RAID EDITION Caviar SE16 7200rpm 8.9ms 16MB cache I am tempted to use the Western Digital Raid Edition as it has 5 years of warranty. However I found out that the "Raid Edition" means that the disk supports TLER - time limited error recovery: http://www.excelmeridiandata.com/products/wd_raid_edition_drive.shtml A more profound description can be found here http://www.wdc.com/en/library/sata/2579-001098.pdf. In summary, the error recovery time of the hard disk is reduced to 8 second. If the hard disk can...

How can I diagnose why a resilver appears to be hanging at a certain percentage, seemingly doing nothing for quite a while, even though the HDD LED is lit up permanently (no apparent head seeking)? The drives in the pool are WD Raid Editions, thus have TLER and should time out on errors in just seconds. ZFS nor the syslog however were reporting any IO errors, so it weren''t the disks. Stopping the scrub didn''t work, the zfs command didn''t return. It took a hard reset to make it stop. The system in question is OpenSolaris up...

...mixing these? > > using Linux MDRAID ? they'll probably be fine. they are all 7200rpm > drives so should have quite similar performance. main difference is the > MTBE spec It's "enterprise" grade, where the two reds are "NAS-ready". In either case, the TLER should be 7 sec, so it should work. The ones to watch out for are the desktop grade, like the green (bleah!!!), which have a TLER of something like 2 MINUTES. That will *not* work in a server.... mark "why, yes, we did try them"

I see a really good price, and better for quantity, for 3TB drives. Now, I've been down on WD for a couple of years, since I found that they'd protected certain h/d parms from being changed (like TLER). The ones I'm looking at are the Red, which seems to be a new color (at least to me), and one technical review I've read says that they're intended for NAS, etc, and you can adjust those parms. They're *not* supposed to be "enterprise" or server grade, but it sounds like...

...; I just had a truly unpleasant thought, speaking of disks. Years ago, we tried some WD Green drives in our servers, and that was a disaster. In somewhere between days and weeks, the drives would go offline. I finally found out what happened: consumer-grade drives are intended for desktops, and the TLER - how long the drive keeps trying to read or write to a sector before giving up, marking the sector bad, and going somewhere else - is two *minutes*. Our servers were expecting the TLER to be 7 *seconds* or under. Any chance the client cheaped out with any of the drives? mark

I have 3 4TB WD drives I want to put in a RAID1 array. Two WD4000FYYZ and One WD4000F9YZ All enterprise class but two are WD Re and one is WD Se. I ordered the first two thinking 2 drives in the raid array would be sufficient but later decided its a long drive to the server so I would rather have 3 drives and ordered a third in accidentally did not get EXACT same thing. Would there be ANY

I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what is the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with the ZFS-on-Linux folks (now OpenZFS)? Is it a licensing issue, political, etc? Although btrfs is making progress, ZFS is far more mature, has a few more stable features (especially Raid-z3) and has worked flawlessly for me on CentOS-6 and Scientific Linux-6.

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:03 AM, Larry Martell <larry.martell at gmail.com> wrote: > This site is locked down like no other I have ever seen. You cannot > bring anything into the site - no computers, no media, no phone. You > ... > This is my client's client, and even if I could circumvent their > policy I would not do that. They have a zero tolerance policy and if >

We recently had a disk fail on one of our whitebox (SuperMicro) ZFS arrays (Solaris 10 U9). The disk began throwing errors like this: May 5 04:33:44 dev-zfs4 scsi: [ID 243001 kern.warning] WARNING: /pci at 0,0/pci8086,3410 at 9/pci15d9,400 at 0 (mpt_sas0): May 5 04:33:44 dev-zfs4 mptsas_handle_event_sync: IOCStatus=0x8000, IOCLogInfo=0x31110610 And errors for the drive were

I have had great luck with nvidia fakeraid on RAID1, but I see there are preferences for software raid. I have very little hands on with full Linux software RAID and that was about 14 years ago. I am trying to determine which to use on a rebuild in a "standard" CentOS/Xen enviroment. It seems to me that while FakeRaid is/can be completely taken care of in dom0 dmraid whereas with

...do some very accurate predictions and proactive hotsparing when needed. That's part of what you pay for when you buy that sort of array. But the other fact of life of modern consumer-level hard drives is that *errored sectors are expected* and not exceptions. Why else would a drive have a TLER in the two minute range like many of the WD Green drives do? And with a consumer-level drive I would be shocked if badblocks reported the same number each time it ran through.

..., with a 3TB drive for userspace loosing it on a server, and spitting DRDY errors, but which work on everything else. Well, enough research, and conversation, and I may have found the problem: it's a Caviar Green, meant for a desktop, and the controller in the server has issues, because it uses TLER: http://hardforum.com/archive/index.php/t-1285254.html http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=14603.0 In short, if it hits an error, it can take, in extreme cases, up to two min to recover; meanwhile, a RAID or HBA controller has hissy fits if it takes more than 7 or 15 seconds. I'm ready t...

Overnight I was running a zfs send | zfs receive (both within the same system / zpool). The system ran out of space, a drive went off line, and the system is degraded. This is a raidz2 array running on FreeBSD 8.1-STABLE #0: Sat Sep 18 23:43:48 EDT 2010. The following logs are also available at http://www.langille.org/tmp/zfs-space.txt <- no line wrapping This is what was running: #

Is there a way to update a CentOS 5.4 server to 5.6 (but not 5.7)? "yum update" takes me all the way up to 5.7. Best, -at

Hi All I have xeon server with 16 Gb Ram and no Swap memory.I am running cassandra server on two node in cluster.When there is high load on server kswapd0 kicks inn and take 100% cpu and make machine very slow and we need to restart out cassandra server.I have latest kernel 2.6.18-238.9.1.el5.Please let me know how can i fix this issue .Its hurting us badly this our production server any

Hello All I have a brand spanking new 40TB Hardware Raid6 array to play around with. I am looking for recommendations for which filesystem to use. I am trying not to break this up into multiple file systems as we are going to use it for backups. Other factors is performance and reliability. CentOS 5.6 array is /dev/sdb So here is what I have tried so far reiserfs is limited to 16TB ext4

Hello, Having a problem with software RAID that is driving me crazy. Here's the details: 1. CentOS 6.2 x86_64 install from the minimal iso (via pxeboot). 2. Reasonably good PC hardware (i.e. not budget, but not server grade either) with a pair of 1TB Western Digital SATA3 Drives. 3. Drives are plugged into the SATA3 ports on the mainboard (both drives and cables say they can do 6Gb/s). 4.

Hi, my oi151 based home NAS is approaching a frightening "drive space" level. Right now the data volume is a 4*1TB Raid-Z1, 3 1/2" local disks individually connected to an 8 port LSI 6Gbit controller. So I can either exchange the disks one by one with autoexpand, use 2-4 TB disks and be happy. This was my original approach. However I am totally unclear about the 512b vs 4Kb issue.

Hi list, I've a notebook with C7 (1511). This notebook has 2 disk (640 GB) and I've configured them with MD at level 1. Some days ago I've noticed some critical slowdown while opening applications. First of all I've disabled acpi on disks. I've checked disk for badblocks 4 consecutive times for disk sda and sdb and I've noticed a strange behaviour. On sdb there are

hw wrote: > Richard Zimmerman wrote: >> DO NOT buy the newer HPE DL20 gen9 or ML10 gen9 servers then (especially >> if using CentOS 6.x) > > What would you suggest as alternative, something from Dell? Yep, Dell's are good. And I do *not* want to buy from HP, because their support is nothing like good. And once you run out the warranty, they don't want to even let you