Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:29:13 +0200 From: InterNetX - Juergen Gotteswinter <jg@internetx.com> To: "freebsd-fs@freebsd.org" <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Cannot replace broken hard drive with LSI HBA Message-ID: <560AD879.2010004@internetx.com> In-Reply-To: <CAOjFWZ69Jw6D1Mo5GyZvHfpTaHW7Dg1-z=LNZ_1PN_YAhy3jrA@mail.gmail.com> References: <1443447383.5271.66.camel@data-b104.adm.slu.se> <5609578E.1050606@physics.umn.edu> <560A4640.3030200@internetx.com> <560A9461.8090300@physics.umn.edu> <560A977C.1070102@internetx.com> <560AD2B9.5040706@fuckner.net> <CAOjFWZ69Jw6D1Mo5GyZvHfpTaHW7Dg1-z=LNZ_1PN_YAhy3jrA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am 29.09.2015 um 20:25 schrieb Freddie Cash: > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Michael Fuckner <michael@fuckner.net > <mailto:michael@fuckner.net>>wrote: > > On 9/29/2015 3:51 PM, InterNetX - Juergen Gotteswinter wrote: > > From my Experience using SATA Disks on SAS Controllers, no > matter if > theres an Expander between or not or mixed, those Setups keep on > beeing > flakey / unreliable. I might work under certain conditions, but its > nothing you can bet on. > > Garret Damore (Illumos Project) describes the problem more > detailed here > > http://garrett.damore.org/2010/08/why-sas-sata-is-not-such-great-idea.html > > > come on, the article is 5 years old, some things changed since then! > > - MUX Boards are unreliable and expensive- long time since I last > saw those boards > - SAS Disks are not just 10/15k high performance Disks anymore, most > Nearline Disks are available with native SAS interface as well > - if you pick the right disk there is no trouble using SATA Disks on > SAS Expanders or SAS Controllers (they should have R/V sensors, > optimized FW...). > - if you use desktop drives in a shelf with lets say 24 slots you > should not expect it to work ;-) > > > Why not? ;) > > We use desktop-class drives in our backups storage servers without any > issues. Even the monster boxes with 90 drives in them (2 JBODs of 45 > drives each) run without issues using desktop-class drives. > > We're using a mix of WD Black (1, 2, 4 TB), Toshiba (2 TB), and Seagate > (1, 2 TB). > > 2 systems using 24 drive bays. 2 systems using 90 drive bays. Plugged > into SuperMicro SAS expanders and LSI 9211-8i or 9211-8e (I think that's > the model number) controllers. All SAS2008 chipsets using mps(4) drivers. > > We're not looking for uber-performance and millions of IOps from these > systems, as the gigabit NIC is the bottleneck (rsync and zfs send both > saturate that link, but all operations still complete within the > allotted 8 hours window). > > We replace maybe 6-8 drives per year across all 4 systems; a little more > than that this year due to overheating in one location, but that's been > fixed. > > When a 2 TB desktop-class harddrive is $ 80 CDN in bulk, and we're only > replacing 8 drives per year (under warranty, of course), it just doesn't > make sense to spend the extra money on server-class, RAID-aware, > nearline, or SAS drives. :) > > If you are building a storage server that requires millions of IOps > with multiple 10 Gbps connections, then sure, desktop-class drives won't > cut it. But for everything else, they're fine. > > -- > Freddie Cash > fjwcash@gmail.com <mailto:fjwcash@gmail.com> hello backplaze? :) sounds legit to me, since you dont seem to mix sata/sas
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?560AD879.2010004>