similar to: ext4, 4k sector alignment

Well this is a new one.... Illumos/Openindiana let me add a device as a hot spare that evidently has a different sector alignment than all of the other drives in the array. So now I''m at the point that I /need/ a hot spare and it doesn''t look like I have it. And, worse, the other spares I have are all the same model as said hot spare. Is there anything I can do with this or

Chris Murphy wrote: <snip> > The emulation implementations don't come into play if the alignment is > correct from the start. The better implementations have significantly > less pathological behavior if alignment is wrong, but that's > anecdotal, I don't have any empirical data available. But I'd say in > any case you want it properly aligned. You really,

Hello again. Do any of you have one of the 'new' HDDs with 4kB Sectors currently in use? I would upgrade to the 4kB disks but I don't know if this might be problematic as I intend to use ZFS w/ RAIDz or at least a classic RAID6. How might this affect performance under 5.5 and how do I go about setting up the alignment of the partitions I use? Kind regards Dawid Horace

Still have good quality older sata hardware raid cards that require 512 bytes/sector. As far as I know HD manufacturers are not making native 512 bytes/sector drives any more. Some have better 512e emulation than others. Looking for some advice on which to avoid and which are recommended. Thanks. PS this is for a CentOS6 server.

Does BTRFS perform any journal and/or filesystem structure alignment (for benefit to SSD longevity and SSD, RAID array and large-sector device performance) at present? ext4''s Ted Tso will deliver 128KB alignment with the next release of e2fsprogs (ie 1.41.4) [1], so perhaps it''s a good idea for btrfsprogs also, if not already available? Daniel --- [1]

Does anyone know if 4k sectors will be handled better by the kernel in Centos6? I'd like to copy backups to a 750Gb laptop type drive for offsite storage but the best write speed I can get is about 8MB/sec even with dd to the raw disk which shouldn't have an issue with partition alignment. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com

Hello Everyone, I have a CentOS 6.3 host running a few KVMs. One of them is a CentOS 6.3 KVM that I want to use for making backups with BackupPC. What I'm having a problem with is assigning the KVM an external drive. I used to run BackupPC on an Ubuntu box. The backups went to an external eSATA 1.5TB, ext4 format, single partition drive (regular 3.5" in an enclosure). I want to now

Hi all. I''ve got a domU that exists in a sparse file image, I''d like to now use this on a physical partition (loopback performance issues). Is there an a easy way to do this ? Thanks Stuart _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

I believe I've posted before about one of the speed issues we were having, of backups taking many, many hours that should *not* take that long. My manager and I finally nailed it down to the h/d itself. Identical boxes, and he tried a backup of one system which took under two hours, while the same regular one rand nearly six. I'd been googling on and off for weeks, and this morning, ran

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Chris Murphy <lists at colorremedies.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Robert Arkiletian <robark at gmail.com> > wrote: > > Still have good quality older sata hardware raid cards that require 512 > > bytes/sector. As far as I know HD manufacturers are not making native 512 > > bytes/sector drives any more. > >

Hello everyone, As one of the steps of improving my ZFS home fileserver (snv_134) I wanted to replace a 1TB disk with a newer one of the same vendor/model/size because this new one has 64MB cache vs. 16MB in the previous one. The removed disk will be use for backups, so I thought it''s better off to have a 64MB cache disk in the on-line pool than in the backup set sitting off-line all

Hi ZFS Discuss, I have a 8x 1TB RAIDZ running on Samsung 1TB 5400rpm drives with 512b sectors. I will be replacing all of these with 8x Western Digital 2TB drives with support for 4K sectors. The replacement plan will be to swap out each of the 8 drives until all are replaced and the new size (~16TB) is available with a `zfs scrub`. My question is, how do I do this and also factor in the new

greetings. centos 6.7 [current] 'disk utility' has started showing message; WARNING: The partition is misaligned by 2560 bytes. This may result in very poor performance. Repartitioning is suggested. for sdc5 - /home partition. /dev/sdc5 302243312 156348604 130534968 55% /home /dev/sdc7 80854912 57088 76683952 1% /hdd/c/07 other than time involved to backup

If I want to use a batch of new Seagate 3TB Barracudas with Solaris 11, will zpool let me create a new pool with ashift=12 out of the box or will I need to play around with a patched zpool binary (or the iSCSI loopback)? -- Dave Pooser Manager of Information Services Alford Media http://www.alfordmedia.com

Hi. Is the problem with ZFS supporting 4k sectors or is the problem mixing 512 byte and 4k sector disks in one pool, or something else? I have seen alot of discussion on the 4k issue but I haven''t understood what the actual problem ZFS has with 4k sectors is. It''s getting harder and harder to find large disks with 512 byte sectors so what should we do? TIA...

Hi syslinux developers, As the title questions. Would like to know the status about 4k sector size support. I use the latest code build and use these library. Then try to boot on efi from my 4k sector size virtual devices. It always hangs on bootloader. I try to use the same bootloader and library on 512 sector size virtual devices and it works normal. Check the previous mail list and git

Hey folks, I've been getting requests from the users that they want the OCFS2 filesystems aligned to 64k boundaries, however, when I began the project, the dummy of me, created the OCFS2 filesystem on top of the whole disk device (no partition) for example, one of the SAN devices would show up as /dev/dm-10, I created the filesystem using the following command: mkfs.ocfs2 -L SOMELABEL

I'm trying to extend a logical volume and I'm doing as follow: 1- Run `fdisk -l` command and this is the output: Disk /dev/sda: 85.9 GB, 85899345920 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 10443 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier:

Hello. I cannot install syslinux on my hard disk image. Steps to reproduce the problem: (1) Create a zeroed disk image with 800 tracks, 32 sides, and 63 sectors or 825753600 bytes (2) Fdisk and format it with "format.com /S C:" from windows 98SE boot disk. (3) Copy syslinux (tested version 3.11, 3.20, and latest released) to root. (4) Run "lock C:" and press

I accidentally realized today that any domU''s using the paravirt disk driver potentially suffer from poor performance when they get handed in a physical volume and partitioning is done inside the guest. The physical volume passed in has to be one that has the compat 512 logical sector size but hints its real sector size (eg. 4096) as physical sector size. In dom0 handling is correct and