zfs discuss - Mar 2012 - Compatibility of Hitachi Deskstar 7K3000 HDS723030ALA640 with ZFS

Greetings,

Quick question:

I am about to acquire some disks for use with ZFS (currently using zfs-fuse
v0.7.0). I''m aware of some 4k alignment issues with Western Digital
advanced format disks.
As far as I can tell, the Hitachi Deskstar 7K3000 (HDS723030ALA640) uses
512B sectors and so I presume does not suffer from such issues (because it
doesn''t lie about the physical layout of sectors on-platter)
Can someone confirm this or point out any other known issues with the disks?
I will be using the disks raw, unpartitioned.

Many thanks,

Luis.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20120305/3672a6c6/attachment.html>

> Deskstar 7K3000 (HDS723030ALA640)
We are using these disks.  They work fine with ZFS.


Regards -- Volker
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volker A. Brandt               Consulting and Support for Oracle Solaris
Brandt & Brandt Computer GmbH                   WWW: http://www.bb-c.de/
Am Wiesenpfad 6, 53340 Meckenheim, GERMANY            Email: vab at bb-c.de
Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bonn, HRB 10513              Schuhgr??e: 46
Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Rainer J.H. Brandt und Volker A. Brandt

"When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead"

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:52 AM, luis Johnstone <luis at luisjohnstone.com>
wrote:
> As far as I can tell, the Hitachi?Deskstar 7K3000 (HDS723030ALA640) uses
> 512B sectors and so I presume does not suffer from such issues (because it
> doesn''t lie about the physical layout of sectors on-platter)
Both the 7K3000 and 5K3000 drives have 512B physical sectors.

-B

-- 
Brandon High : bhigh at freaks.com

Hi Brandon,


On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:52 AM, luis Johnstone <luis at
luisjohnstone.com<mailto:luis at luisjohnstone.com>> wrote:
As far as I can tell, the Hitachi Deskstar 7K3000 (HDS723030ALA640) uses
512B sectors and so I presume does not suffer from such issues (because it
doesn''t lie about the physical layout of sectors on-platter)

Both the 7K3000 and 5K3000 drives have 512B physical sectors.

Do you or anyone else have experience with the 3TB 5K3000 drives (namely
HDS5C3030ALA630)? I am thinking of replacing my current 4*1TB drives with 4*3TB
drives (home server). Any issues with TER or alike?


Kind regards,
   JP
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20120306/36555186/attachment.html>

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 05:40, Koopmann, Jan-Peter <jan-peter at
koopmann.eu> wrote:
> Hi Brandon,
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:52 AM, luis Johnstone <luis at
luisjohnstone.com>
> wrote:
>
> As far as I can tell, the Hitachi?Deskstar 7K3000 (HDS723030ALA640) uses
> 512B sectors and so I presume does not suffer from such issues (because it
> doesn''t lie about the physical layout of sectors on-platter)
>
>
> Both the 7K3000 and 5K3000 drives have 512B physical sectors.
>
>
> Do you or anyone else have experience with the 3TB 5K3000 drives
> (namely?HDS5C3030ALA630)? I am thinking of replacing my current 4*1TB
drives
> with 4*3TB drives (home server). Any issues with TER or alike?
I have 6 5k3000s with no problems whatsoever.

Will

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Koopmann, Jan-Peter
<jan-peter at koopmann.eu> wrote:
> Do you or anyone else have experience with the 3TB 5K3000 drives
> (namely?HDS5C3030ALA630)? I am thinking of replacing my current 4*1TB
drives
> with 4*3TB drives (home server). Any issues with TER or alike?
I have been using 8 x 3TB 5k3000 in a raidz2 for about a year without issue.

The Deskstar 3TB come off the same production line as the Ultrastar
5k3000. I would avoid the 2TB and smaler 5k3000 - They come off a
separate production line.

-B

-- 
Brandon High : bhigh at freaks.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: zfs-discuss-bounces at opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> bounces at opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Brandon High
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 1:28 PM
> To: Koopmann, Jan-Peter
> Cc: zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org; luis Johnstone
> Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Compatibility of Hitachi Deskstar 7K3000
> HDS723030ALA640 with ZFS
> 
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Koopmann, Jan-Peter <jan-
> peter at koopmann.eu> wrote:
> > Do you or anyone else have experience with the 3TB 5K3000 drives
> > (namely?HDS5C3030ALA630)? I am thinking of replacing my current 4*1TB
> > drives with 4*3TB drives (home server). Any issues with TER or alike?
> 
> I have been using 8 x 3TB 5k3000 in a raidz2 for about a year without
issue.
> 
> The Deskstar 3TB come off the same production line as the Ultrastar 5k3000.
I
> would avoid the 2TB and smaler 5k3000 - They come off a separate
> production line.
> 
> -B
> 
> --
> Brandon High : bhigh at freaks.com
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
We have been using around 24 of these on our backup targets for approximately 9
months without issue.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jordan McQuown" <jcm at larsondesigngroup.com> 
To: "Jan-Peter Koopmann" <jan-peter at koopmann.eu> 
Cc: zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org 
Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2012 1:36:54 PM 
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Compatibility of Hitachi Deskstar 7K3000
HDS723030ALA640 with ZFS
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: zfs-discuss-bounces at opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- 
> bounces at opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Brandon High 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 1:28 PM 
> To: Koopmann, Jan-Peter 
> Cc: zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org; luis Johnstone 
> Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Compatibility of Hitachi Deskstar 7K3000 
> HDS723030ALA640 with ZFS 
> 
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Koopmann, Jan-Peter <jan- 
> peter at koopmann.eu> wrote: 
> > Do you or anyone else have experience with the 3TB 5K3000 drives 
> > (namely HDS5C3030ALA630)? I am thinking of replacing my current 4*1TB 
> > drives with 4*3TB drives (home server). Any issues with TER or alike? 
> 
> I have been using 8 x 3TB 5k3000 in a raidz2 for about a year without
issue.
> 
> The Deskstar 3TB come off the same production line as the Ultrastar 5k3000.
I
> would avoid the 2TB and smaler 5k3000 - They come off a separate 
> production line. 

Though I must say, in their defense, we''ve got a bunch of these
(5K3000s) in one of our machines, constituting a ZFS array - and
they''ve been perfectly reliable. Only paid about $70 for ''em
at the time, too.


Lou Picciano 


> -B 
> 
> -- 
> Brandon High : bhigh at freaks.com 
> _______________________________________________ 
> zfs-discuss mailing list 
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org 
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss 
We have been using around 24 of these on our backup targets for approximately 9
months without issue.
_______________________________________________ 
zfs-discuss mailing list 
zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org 
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20120307/557e646f/attachment.html>

We''re using Hitachi HDS723030ALA640 on this rather busy server, and
they''ve been stable for about a year - I don''t even think
we''ve lost any yet (out of 22)

roy 

----- Opprinnelig melding -----


Greetings, 


Quick question: 


I am about to acquire some disks for use with ZFS (currently using zfs-fuse
v0.7.0). I''m aware of some 4k alignment issues with Western Digital
advanced format disks.
As far as I can tell, the Hitachi Deskstar 7K3000 (HDS723030ALA640) uses 512B
sectors and so I presume does not suffer from such issues (because it
doesn''t lie about the physical layout of sectors on-platter)
Can someone confirm this or point out any other known issues with the disks? 
I will be using the disks raw, unpartitioned. 


Many thanks, 


Luis. 
_______________________________________________ 
zfs-discuss mailing list 
zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org 
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss 





-- 

Vennlige hilsener / Best regards 

roy 
-- 
Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk 
(+47) 98013356 
roy at karlsbakk.net 
http://blogg.karlsbakk.net/ 
-- 
I all pedagogikk er det essensielt at pensum presenteres intelligibelt. Det er
et element?rt imperativ for alle pedagoger ? unng? eksessiv anvendelse av
idiomer med fremmed opprinnelse. I de fleste tilfeller eksisterer adekvate og
relevante synonymer p? norsk.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20120307/e063224d/attachment.html>

> From: zfs-discuss-bounces at opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> bounces at opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of luis Johnstone
> 
> I am about to acquire some disks for use with ZFS (currently using
zfs-fuse
> v0.7.0). I''m aware of some 4k alignment issues with Western
Digital
advanced
> format disks.
> As far as I can tell, the Hitachi?Deskstar 7K3000 (HDS723030ALA640) uses
512B
> sectors and so I presume does not suffer from such issues (because it
> doesn''t lie about the physical layout of sectors on-platter)
I think what you mean to ask is "Is the HD7K3000 a piece of junk?" 
Because
any disk which is lying about its physical sectors is a piece of junk,
regardless of what filesystem is going to be on it.

This isn''t a ZFS question.  (Nothing wrong with asking - I''m
not trying to
discourage having the discussion, but please don''t associate such
problems
with ZFS as if ZFS is unique in that way.)

2012-03-07 17:21, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>> From: zfs-discuss-bounces at opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
>> bounces at opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of luis Johnstone
>> As far as I can tell, the Hitachi Deskstar 7K3000 (HDS723030ALA640)
uses
> 512B
>> sectors and so I presume does not suffer from such issues (because it
>> doesn''t lie about the physical layout of sectors on-platter)
>
> I think what you mean to ask is "Is the HD7K3000 a piece of
junk?"  Because
> any disk which is lying about its physical sectors is a piece of junk,
> regardless of what filesystem is going to be on it.
>
> This isn''t a ZFS question.  (Nothing wrong with asking -
I''m not trying to
> discourage having the discussion, but please don''t associate such
problems
> with ZFS as if ZFS is unique in that way.)

Well, of the currently-used FSes, ZFS does have certain issues
with 4k drives, which make it rather unique.

Table/bitmap based FSes like NTFS or FAT can preallocate their
file-allocation tables and don''t have any metadata overhead
compared to 512b-sectored disks. In part this is due to having
4kb clusters as default for quite a while, so no expectations
of users change.

ZFS tree has many small nodes as well as file "tails", so it
can effectively utilize small 512b blocks on disks. When you
migrate same pool to ashift=12, it explodes to require more
disk space (from several percent up to ten-twenty, according
to internet rumours). Users don''t often expect that, so it is
sorts of an issue.

While it can be speculated that other FSes already steal this
slack space from users on any other drives, this change of
behavior on ZFS on different drive types can be seen as a
drawback, by some.

//Jim