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 1PzWAe-0007IH-HI for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:28:28 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7D3041C027; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:27:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DA601C027 for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:27:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1F471BC0F0 for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:27:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.537 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.537 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.062, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 29tDIND7vvEY for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:27:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73D401BC0F5 for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:27:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PzW9B-0002YQ-Gb for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:26:57 +0100 Received: from rrcs-71-40-157-251.se.biz.rr.com ([71.40.157.251]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:26:57 +0100 Received: from wireless by rrcs-71-40-157-251.se.biz.rr.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:26:57 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: James Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: terrible performance with btrfs on LVM2 using a WD 2TB green drive Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:26:44 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <1300167466.30677.32.camel@troll> 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-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: sea.gmane.org User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) X-Loom-IP: 71.40.157.251 (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.17) Gecko/20110311 Gentoo/2.0.12 SeaMonkey/2.0.12) X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 7615947e93aa6a47de7bdc4737d4fc9b Bill Kenworthy iinet.net.au> writes: > I have recently added a WD 2TB green drive to two systems and am finding > terrible performance with btrfs on an LVM using these drives. Hmmmm, I've been contemplating btrfs on some new installs with the eventual goal of a CEPH network file system, on top of ext4 and/or btrfs. Is this issue just with the drivers, or related to btrfs too? How is btrfs , from the "driver's seat"? Does this aberration you detail, extend to the Green Seagate 2T drives? > I just saw on the mythtv list about the sector size problem these drives Can you give a precise link to this list or can I follow it (read only) via net news? (if so what is the news group name)? I'd like to read up on this issue, as I have several gentoo installs (very soon) that will have RAID1 using (2) ST 2T green drives. Alternative RAID configs and performance/reliability results is also of keen interest to many; so thanks for posting about these issues. James