Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 27 Jan 2010 03:53:20 +0900
From:      =?UTF-8?B?VG9tbWkgTMOkdHRp?= <sty@iki.fi>
To:        Dan Naumov <dan.naumov@gmail.com>
Cc:        FreeBSD-STABLE Mailing List <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: immense delayed write to file system (ZFS and UFS2), performance issues
Message-ID:  <f43ef3191001261053q252826cp3fcca095860ac3bf@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <cf9b1ee01001261045j3b0901cen74469a545e47fb49@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <cf9b1ee01001261045j3b0901cen74469a545e47fb49@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> =C2=A09 Power_On_Hours =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A00x0032 =C2=A0 10=
0 =C2=A0 100 =C2=A0 000 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Old_age
> Always =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 - =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 136
> 193 Load_Cycle_Count =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A00x0032 =C2=A0 199 =C2=A0 =
199 =C2=A0 000 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Old_age
> Always =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 - =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 5908
>
> The disks are of exact same model and look to be same firmware. Should
> I be worried that the newer disk has, in 136 hours reached a higher
> Load Cycle count twice as big as on the disk thats 5253 hours old?

Well AFAIK WD certifies that there's no extra risk involved unless you
go over 300.000 park cycles. On the other hand, my 9 month 1.5tb green
drive has over 200.000 cycles.

Maybe check if you can disable the idle timer using WDIDLE3... works
for my drives (although it did some strange things to one out of the 6
drives --> decreased reported sector count and the zfs invalidated the
pool :/ ).

--=20
br,
Tommi



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?f43ef3191001261053q252826cp3fcca095860ac3bf>