similar to: OT: AF 4k sector drives with 512 emulation

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. > >

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. 512n drives still exist, although they tend to be a bit smaller, 2TB or less.

Hi al Does anyone here that knows if the new 7K3000 drives from Hitachi uses 4k sectors or not? The docs say "Sector size (variable, Bytes/sector): 512", but since it''s variable, any idea what it might be? I''m planning to replace 7x3+1 drives on this system to try to get some free space on some full VDEVs. If the drives are in fact 4k sector drives, will it be possible

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,

On 2/27/2015 3:06 PM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: > Alignment's easy: using parted (the user-hostile program), if you do go in > with parted -a optimal /dev/drive, and do > mkpart pri ext4 0.0GB 100% (for non-root drives, for example), it's > aligned correctly. i found -a optimal to do weird things, and almost always complain. I just use -a none now, and specify partition

Richard Zimmerman wrote: > hw wrote: >> Next question: you want RAID, how much storage do you need? Will 4 or 8 3.5" drives be enough (DO NOT GET crappy 2.5" drives - they're *much* more expensive than the 3.5" drives, and >smaller disk space. For the price of a 1TB 2.5", I can get at least a 4TB WD Red. > > I will second Marks comments here. Yes,

Hi! cc'd to freebsd-security@ as somebody there may correct me, cc'd to secteam@ as maintaner of security/portaudit. On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 10:14:21 +0930 Ian Moore wrote: > I've just updated my acroread port to 7.0.1 & was surprised when portaudit > still listed it as a vulnerability. I think it is portaudit problem. > According to

Hi, thank you for your reply. I'll continue inline... Dne 09.09.2020 v 3:15 John Stoffel napsal(a): > Miloslav> Hello, > Miloslav> I sent this into the Linux Kernel Btrfs mailing list and I got reply: > Miloslav> "RAID-1 would be preferable" > Miloslav> (https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/7b364356-7041-7d18-bd77-f60e0e2e2112 at lechevalier.se/T/). >

Hello, I sent this into the Linux Kernel Btrfs mailing list and I got reply: "RAID-1 would be preferable" (https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/7b364356-7041-7d18-bd77-f60e0e2e2112 at lechevalier.se/T/). May I ask you for the comments as from people around the Dovecot? We are using btrfs RAID-10 (/data, 4.7TB) on a physical Supermicro server with Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @

On 02/04/16 08:03, Ady via Syslinux wrote: > > My _*guess*_ is that no developer of Syslinux has actually tested this > scenario (i.e. booting syslinux.efi on "4k" devices), but I could be > wrong. > I don't think we have tested booting from 4K logical sector devices; and I suspect the BIOS authors haven't either... -hpa

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

Valeri Galtsev wrote: > > On Thu, November 2, 2017 11:21 am, hw wrote: >> Richard Zimmerman wrote: >>> hw wrote: >>>> Next question: you want RAID, how much storage do you need? Will 4 or >>>> 8 >>>> 3.5" drives be enough (DO NOT GET crappy 2.5" drives - they're *much* >>>> more expensive than the 3.5" drives,

Le 18/11/2018 ? 15:30, Lamar Owen a ?crit : > I did the update from CR, and have some pretty serious issues. Until > I blew away (by mv to a different name) the .local and .config > directory trees, I couldn't log in to GNOME at all. After doing > that, I can log in, but if I do any actual work, GNOME crashes, and > abrt-cli from root in vc 2 tells me that gnome-shell got a

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, folks, Well, I get back from vacation, and three CentOS 7 boxes didn't come up this morning (my manager and the other admin did the update & reboot). On these three - but *not* another one or two, and I don't think those others are Dells, they're supermicro's - the 327 kernel fell into the rdosshell, I guess. I finally got one the three up by going back to the 228.14

Hello all. Our Gluster 9.6 cluster is showing increasing problems. Currently it's composed of 3 servers (2x Intel Xeon 4210 [20 cores dual thread, total 40 threads], 192GB RAM, 30x HGST HUH721212AL5200 [12TB]), configured in replica 3 arbiter 1. Using Debian packages from Gluster 9.x latest repository. Seems 192G RAM are not enough to handle 30 data bricks + 15 arbiters and I often had

Dear all, when I look at the internal of mapply() function, I see a line of code: answer <- .Call("do_mapply", FUN, dots, MoreArgs, environment(), PACKAGE = "base") Can somebody please tell me how to find the source code of 'do_mapply' Thanks, [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Hi, I am a new user in R. I wanted to study the code for some R commands. For example, as I was studying PCA analysis there is a command in R, as "princomp". Normally if we type the command we get the code behind the function, but I am not able to get for this one. *> princomp function (x, ...) UseMethod("princomp") <environment: namespace:stats* It would be helpful

Hi, time ago I started doing support for 4k sector disk for syslinux. Patches worked for my cases (ext) and did not introduced regression problems with normal disks. Now I would like to update these patches and upstream them. It's not clear however which is the branch I should use to rebase these patches. Previous patches was against syslinux-4.06 but now there is syslinux-5.01 (elflink)

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