From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Pzp8V-0003S9-Qr for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 11:43:32 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A3C941C003; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 11:41:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtpq2.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net (smtpq2.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net [212.54.34.165]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69BB81C003 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 11:41:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [212.54.34.142] (helo=smtp11.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net) by smtpq2.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pzp6q-000432-PN for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:41:48 +0100 Received: from 5353c7ed.cm-6-4d.dynamic.ziggo.nl ([83.83.199.237] helo=data.antarean.org) by smtp11.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pzp6p-0004TC-Tf for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:41:47 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by data.antarean.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E120304B for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:42:07 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at antarean.org Received: from data.antarean.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (data.antarean.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C1Mts7SNv4Gy for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:42:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from eve.localnet (eve.lan.antarean.org [10.20.13.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by data.antarean.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0741FF0A for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:42:07 +0100 (CET) From: Joost Roeleveld To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] terrible performance with btrfs on LVM2 using a WD 2TB green drive Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:41:46 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/4.6 beta4 (Linux/2.6.36-gentoo-r5; KDE/4.6.0; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <4D807A91.2000901@binarywings.net> References: <1300167466.30677.32.camel@troll> <201103142350.49670.matt@deploylinux.net> <4D807A91.2000901@binarywings.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <20110316114207.3E120304B@data.antarean.org> X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-ID: 1Pzp6p-0004TC-Tf X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-SpamCheck: geen spam, SpamAssassin (niet cached, score=1.125, vereist 5, BAYES_40 -0.00, RDNS_DYNAMIC 0.98, TW_KF 0.08, TW_MK 0.08, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD -0.01) X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-SpamScore: s X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-From: joost@antarean.org X-Spam-Status: No X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 1c4faccb0b1e0c55cdd48592b0c3ec24 On Wednesday 16 March 2011 09:53:37 Florian Philipp wrote: > Am 15.03.2011 07:50, schrieb Matthew Marlowe: > >> My problem is that LVM2 is not supported in parted which is the > >> recommended tool to deal with this. > >> > >> I suspect I only need to map the individual PE to a particular start > >> sector on each drive, not btrfs, but then there is stripe/block sizes > >> to > >> consider as well ... WD also are recommending 1mb sector boundaries > >> for > >> best performance - I can see a reinstall coming up :) > > > > I have on my workstation: > > 2 WD 2TB Black Drives > > 5 WD 2TB RE4 Drives > > > > Some notes: > > - The black drives have horrible reliability, poor sector remapping, and > > have certain standard drive features to make them unusable in raid. I > > would not buy them again. I'm not sure how similar the green drives > > are. > > Green drives also seem to be affected: > http://doug.warner.fm/d/blog/2009/11/Western-Digital-15TB-Green-Drives-Not-y > our-Linux-Software-RAID I have 6 Green drives (WDC WD15EARS) in a RAID5 and I have not seen any issues. Only issue I saw was 1 drive with "reallocated" sectors as also mentioned by one of the commenters on that page. Replaced that drive and no further problems so far. I did, however, spent time to align the sectors correctly for the Raid- partitions, striping, LVM blocksize and the mkfs-statements. Without those, performance was really bad. I would prefer to see proper support for 4K-sector-size drives. -- Joost