What's new
  • Please do not post any links until you have 3 posts as they will automatically be rejected to prevent SPAM. Many words are also blocked due to being used in SPAM Messages. Thanks!

Case Pics

crazyea

Well-known member
Joined
May 15, 2012
Messages
1,071
Location
Surrey, BC
I had to cull a lot of data because I was migrating from windows to unraid, Cutting from 40TB to under 10TB.

Now that think of it, I probably could have just added one drive at a time. But, then I don't miss those files, so it's all good.

I noticed you have 2 parity drives, as do I, but I'm wondering if I even needed to go to 2 just yet with only 8 drives.
 

anabioz

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
654
Location
Montreal
I had to cull a lot of data because I was migrating from windows to unraid, Cutting from 40TB to under 10TB.

Now that think of it, I probably could have just added one drive at a time. But, then I don't miss those files, so it's all good.

I noticed you have 2 parity drives, as do I, but I'm wondering if I even needed to go to 2 just yet with only 8 drives.

You do, you don't want to lose data if during a rebuild another drive fails. The bigger the drives, the more susceptible they are to fail under heavy load and rebuilds are very stressful.
 

JD

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
10,571
Location
Toronto, ON
Minor performance gains. By default they are 512-bytes emulated. If you already have data on it, don't do it - you will lose it.
Any benchmarks for this? I'm intrigued as I've never come across this before, but I suppose logically it makes sense, why emulate 512 anymore when all modern OS's support 4K.
 

anabioz

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
654
Location
Montreal
Any benchmarks for this? I'm intrigued as I've never come across this before, but I suppose logically it makes sense, why emulate 512 anymore when all modern OS's support 4K.

That is a valid question, the performance increases that I have seen were around latency and minor read/write improvements. To be frank, that was a few years back and I would have to dig up the sources so don't quote me on that as is.
 

JD

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
10,571
Location
Toronto, ON
That is a valid question, the performance increases that I have seen were around latency and minor read/write improvements. To be frank, that was a few years back and I would have to dig up the sources so don't quote me on that as is.
Ah okay, I searched around last night too and couldn't really find anything. Seagate's white papers metion penalties when writing data but they also say it's not significant.

My IronWolf 10TBs don't expose themselves as 4K drives either, tried those tools you posted on RFD too and it doesn't seem like I can convert them anyhow. I did come across a firmware update though for the drives, so I ended up applying that.
 

anabioz

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
654
Location
Montreal
Ah okay, I searched around last night too and couldn't really find anything. Seagate's white papers metion penalties when writing data but they also say it's not significant.

My IronWolf 10TBs don't expose themselves as 4K drives either, tried those tools you posted on RFD too and it doesn't seem like I can convert them anyhow. I did come across a firmware update though for the drives, so I ended up applying that.

You need to attach them via SATA, won't work over USB.

Caution: You will need to re-format the drives hence you'll lose all of the data.

Procedure:

# Scan the drives, record PD#

C:\TMP\Apps\SeaChestUtilities\Windows\Win64\SeaChest_Format_140_11923_64.exe --scan

# Show Support Formats:
C:\TMP\Apps\SeaChestUtilities\Windows\Win64\SeaChest_Lite_120_11923_64.exe -d PD1 --showSupportedFormats
C:\TMP\Apps\SeaChestUtilities\Windows\Win64\SeaChest_Lite_120_11923_64.exe -d PD2 --showSupportedFormats
C:\TMP\Apps\SeaChestUtilities\Windows\Win64\SeaChest_Lite_120_11923_64.exe -d PD3 --showSupportedFormats
C:\TMP\Apps\SeaChestUtilities\Windows\Win64\SeaChest_Lite_120_11923_64.exe -d PD4 --showSupportedFormats

# Convert to 4KN
C:\TMP\Apps\SeaChestUtilities\Windows\Win64\SeaChest_Format_140_11923_64.exe -d PD1 --setSectorSize 4096 --confirm this-will-erase-data
C:\TMP\Apps\SeaChestUtilities\Windows\Win64\SeaChest_Format_140_11923_64.exe -d PD2 --setSectorSize 4096 --confirm this-will-erase-data
C:\TMP\Apps\SeaChestUtilities\Windows\Win64\SeaChest_Format_140_11923_64.exe -d PD3 --setSectorSize 4096 --confirm this-will-erase-data
C:\TMP\Apps\SeaChestUtilities\Windows\Win64\SeaChest_Format_140_11923_64.exe -d PD4 --setSectorSize 4096 --confirm this-will-erase-data

--

NOTE: I did 4 drives at a time using above instructions. The conversion takes a bit of time, ~ 2 mins.
 

JD

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
10,571
Location
Toronto, ON
You need to attach them via SATA, won't work over USB.
I was doing it on my QNAP, when I run the "showSupportedFormats", I only get 512. I'm assuming it should say 4K here too?

Code:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Logical Block Size  PI-0  PI-1  PI-2  PI-3  Relative Performance  Metadata Size
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*               512     Y     N     N     N                   N/A            N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

anabioz

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
654
Location
Montreal
I was doing it on my QNAP, when I run the "showSupportedFormats", I only get 512. I'm assuming it should say 4K here too?

Code:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Logical Block Size  PI-0  PI-1  PI-2  PI-3  Relative Performance  Metadata Size
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*               512     Y     N     N     N                   N/A            N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4K would be represented by '4096', so in your case it is just 512. Mind you your QNAP may not support 4K natively.
 

gingerbee

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
8,176
Location
Orillia, Ontario
All I know is after seeing all that I am glad I went with just using drive pool and snap raid. I almost went with unraid but it just seems like a lot more work. I only have 11tb on the drive pool server and I just made full copies of each drive in the pool beside the parity drive.

So I have a direct backup of each drive if any fail and I have the snap raid parity to rebuild any drive that fails give me a little extra security.
Wow 3 to 5 years in and out of the hospital really made me fall so far behind on my knowledge base lol very cool info
 

Latest posts

Twitter

Top