Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 06:28:41 +0000 From: =?utf-8?B?S2FybGkgU2rDtmJlcmc=?= <karli.sjoberg@slu.se> To: "jg@internetx.com" <jg@internetx.com> Cc: "freebsd-fs@freebsd.org" <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Cannot replace broken hard drive with LSI HBA Message-ID: <1443594521.5271.92.camel@data-b104.adm.slu.se> In-Reply-To: <560AD879.2010004@internetx.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> <560AD879.2010004@internetx.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
tis 2015-09-29 klockan 20:29 +0200 skrev InterNetX - Juergen Gotteswinter: > 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 We don´t mix. Just SATA, but still it behaves this way. /K
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1443594521.5271.92.camel>