UhClem

Members
  • Posts

    282
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by UhClem

  1. With 20+ data drives, and upgrading from one-parity to two-parity, there could be a prior/intervening performance bottleneck. Do you have sufficient (single-core/thread) CPU power? I.e., can you generate enough parity data (fast enough) to justify/validate your stated question? -- "If you push something hard enough, it will fall over."
  2. It looks like you are going in a very sub-optimal direction. You are putting 2 x 550 MB/sec SSDs (860 evo) onto a PCIe v2 x1 (ASM1061) interface (max 350-400 MB/sec total). Why not use 2 of these mSata-to-Sata adapters [ https://www.amazon.com/Sabrent-2-5-Inch-Aluminum-Enclosure-EC-MSSA/dp/B01MS6669V or https://www.amazon.com/ELUTENG-Enclosure-3050mm-Adapter-Compatible/dp/B07258BJJF ] for your mSata SSDs, connecting them to 2 of your Mobo's Sata ports (for full Sata3/6Gbps speed), and get any ASM1061/2-port card for the two "replaced" Mobo-port HDDs. Surely, you can find a place to Velcro (or duct tape) the two adapter-ed mSata's, and deal with the added cables. (It's a computer, not jewelry--so Function >> Form ...kluges are cool.)
  3. Well, that "Amazon page" is, of course, the responsibility of the seller, GoHardDrive. Are they incompetent, or dishonest? [Remember, drives are their specialty--they should be held accountable for correctness.] Yes. From a 4 yrs ago press release [Link], [ That SM863 link on AMZN is also sold by GoHardDrive.] I have no evidence, or direct experience, but my gut tells me to question their integrity. Keep in mind that, while I (and probably you) am (are) not able to modify/reset SMART data, it is definitely possible. A perusal of Google results for <<goharddrive honest>> is enlightening (though not ALL bad). Who did you buy from on ebay? Good luck with your new toys.
  4. But, is newer actually better? Is there really any "upside" to choosing 4kn (vs 512e)? There is (at least) one actual "downside" -- when the drive(s) purchased today are ultimately re-purposed, the 512e drives are guaranteed compatible (by the ATA specifications). I've been pondering this 512e vs 4kn thing, and the above is my current "state of mind". What am I missing?
  5. That is my understanding -- based on reading/research (no hands-on experience) -- seems to have been spurts of interest/discussion over at forums.servethehome.com. Note: The very important point is that it is known to work ONLY on S2600 boards (possibly a few other Intel server boards). It is a LSI 2308-based board, but Intel has locked its interoperability, ... but not the general functionality. Need?? I don't know, but considering that, even if they already had IT firmware, it's probably old version and might benefit from an update. The important thing is that it looks like updating to (newer) IT firmware is possible, and follows the standard Modus Operandi-- see [Link] (posts by "Marsh", toward the end). Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. [Or, better, "Trust, but verify."] Also, [Intel doc for the board] No promises, but there's even a chance it is PCIe v3.0.
  6. http://www.madepc.com/Intel-8-Ports-SAS-RAID-Controller-PCI-Express-2-0-p/301005654-08.htm Price: $8.14 each - Free shipping (Geez, I can't even use this, but I "want" to buy one at this price---must resist ...) (very reliable seller - but can use AmazonPAY if u want) Manufacturer:Intel Corp Mfr.Part Number:RMS25KB080 MadePC SKU:301005654-08 Condition:New Notes:RMS25KB080, 1 Year Warranty, Hight Profile Bracket, Low Profile Bracket Thought: Folks using other LSI-based cards in their S2600's might want to buy these, and free-up/repurpose their "unlocked" cards. win-win
  7. Better yet, get your tech info first-hand: From LSI (white paper on Databolt) [to borrow an old Unix joke: "Use the source, Luke."] This paper also gives a good overview on expanders. Oh, as for the queried controller in the OP ... if Chiney-fakes weren't bad enough, this one must also be avoided on moral grounds. To make such a denigrating reference/inference on the most innovative and impactful OS is pure blasphemy ... Unicaca ... feh!!!!
  8. A week and a half ago ... To which, you replied: That 10-second test demonstrates that your system supports a concurrent bandwidth of at least 2100 MB/s; far exceeding your observed 1000-1250 MB/s bottleneck. Therefore, the "~1GB/s ceiling" is not replicated, and, as I stated, the remaining candidate is your CPU (based on 2-parity, single-thread, and an "uninspired" implementation). Regardless, you stated: Lesson: When you are digging deep and trying to solve a perplexing puzzle (such as you were--in this thread), it is very important to question ALL of your own assumptions, for that is where blind spots lurk.
  9. [Up-front disclaimer: I don't use unRAID, but I have a "feel" for its basic workings.] Is it true that diskspeed now does simultaneous testing? (I recalled that it didn't (at some point), and proffered dskt2, to pursue that avenue.) If it does, and your (per controller) graphs with N-drive totals, represent concurrent totals, then please excuse me; and I am inclined to agree with your conclusion: Always remember: "Trust ... but verify." Can diskspeed test all 3 controllers (and their drives) concurrently? If not, you can use dskt2 (just specify the full list of drive-letters). In either case, if the ~1GB/s ceiling isn't replicated, a remaining candidate is the CPU, [if unRAID's 2-parity implementation is "uninspired" and single-threaded] -- check with mpstat (I think). Good luck. (I love this type of puzzle--even moreso when it's my own system) --UhClem "It's bad enough that the boss sh*ts on our head, but we have to say 'Thanks for the hat.'"
  10. It could be one drive, or one controller, or one/the bus, or ... Try the little script (dskt2.txt) at the bottom of the linked posting [link]. No GUI, no pretty pictures, just a simple and quick tool to get the info you need to answer your question for yourself. --UhClem "If you push something hard enough, it will fall over." -- Fudd's First Law
  11. To paraphrase The Joker, "This SSD needs an enema." (It's "constipated".) (I've got a 850 EVO (500GB) that is also exhibiting performance degradation; but, note, this is a phenomenon common to all SSDs.) What I/we need is a very low-level format, restoring the drive to a state as close as possible to fresh from the factory. Cursory research indicates that hdparm can do this, using the --trim-sector-ranges option. I have not tried this yet myself, so please excuse me for "Do as I say, not as I do." but at least it's a pointer in (I hope) the right direction. RSVP with your results. tnx --UhClem
  12. Preclear is wastefully inefficient for the task at hand. dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdX bs=1M is good, but dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdX bs=1M oflag=direct is better ... especially on the N40L (I own/use 2). You can probably do all 4 concurrently. BUT, using hdparm's --security-erase would be even better. Not only gets you concurrency, but puts no load on your system; do whatever else you want during those N** hours without slowdown. ** hdparm -I /dev/sdX | tail will show you how long the erase will take, or might indicate that your drive doesn't support it. Some *nix programs are considered tools; some even deserve the name toolkit. Well, hdparm is a friggin full-fledged machine shop! --UhClem "Life is such monotony, without a good lobotomy." [or 4 ... better still 😀]
  13. (Not to poop on yuor parade but ...) Have you checked current/recent pricing on SSDs? Samsung 860 EVO 500GB have been sale priced at US$75-80 shipped (@ Amazon, Newegg, Frys). Maybe, someone really wants the 850? --UhClem "I ain't cheap!! I suffer from chronic frugalitis."
  14. I think I'd rebuild to a NEW one. This one has 2000+ ReAllocated sectors. --UhClem
  15. Listen up, everybody ... Port Multiplication is a can of huge bucket!! of worms. Ever since the pioneering SiI3132 (and its 31xx brethren) [as PM-aware controller] and the SiI 3726 (& 4726/5744) [as Port Multpliers], not a single one of the "me too" followers has come within a mile of correctly implementing even 20% of the [/S]ATA/AHCI Specification for Port Multiplication. Yes, a specific controller chip will actually behave correctly in combination with a specific PM chip (usually with the necessary assistance of a vendor-supplied driver [like a private nurse as the only one who can communicate with the brain-damaged patient]) (or because the two are from the same manufacturer who precisely designed them to inter-operate correctly with each other [but each, independently, is provably brain-damaged]). As an example of that last point, I refer you to the nearby thread on the PEX-40071, which does the PM thing with a Marvell 9235 & a Marvell 9705 (the PM). It actually behaved/performed admirably. But when I tried to connect a SiI3726 (which my gut tells me does a thorough job of meeting the Spec) to a Marvell 9230 (a 9235 with a shoeshine), the results were a total disaster ... even though I can (sort of) get a Marvell 9120 to dance with that same 3726; they dance fine, but they need help getting out on the floor [Don't ask ... just stay away!] Now you know how many shakers of salt you need when you see "port multiplier" used in a bullet list of features for a controller or enclosure ... Caveat Emptor. --UhClem "Hey, mister, is this a game of chance?" ... "Not the way I play it."
  16. This is why I "blacklisted" the card. Fully loaded it's choking. Sure, but you've "overfilled its plate" (below). That is why I advised Zippi to put (& keep) his cache drive on one of the multiplied ports, and leave another one either empty or as the place for an optical or backup drive. With 3 array drives on the 3 "native" 9235 ports, and 3 more array drives on "multiplied" ports, you have a more respectable ~135 MB/s "choke point". And. let it not go unnoticed that by relocating the cache drive, and maybe an additional non-array drive, we free up one, or two, (likely) full-speed ports for array usage. (Like a bass-ackward "doggie bag".) Still, the PEX-40071 is not a good value [@ $90-100]. But if you only have x2 lanes available, and need 5-6 additional array slots (plus, maybe, a 2-slot doggie bag), it ain't bad [enough for the blacklist]. --UhClem
  17. Beautiful! The original test was a quick "stress test"; this last one was more of a quick "torture test". The system might have winced a little during the test, but it did come away smiling. The test result itself (dskt_out_*.txt) looks pretty damn good; my only quibble would be the uneven (albeit, consistent) apportionment of bandwidth to the 4 devices (ie, 15 60 37 13 [vs (e.g.) 30 32 29 34]) during each run[**]. The 4 concurrent runs were nicely consistent with each other. And, the total combined bandwidth was about 505 MiB/s, which, in decimal terms [unRAID community's "preference"] is about 530 MB/s ... on that single 6Gbps connection (9235<=>9705). The consistency of the 4 runs with each other strongly suggests that they were running (essentially precisely) concurrently. If one had finished "late" (or started "early"), it would have had a different/unique result. The fact that DM_after.txt showed no (added) kernel messages indicates that, while the 9235/9705 may have been under duress, they never "cried uncle" [Zippi gets to learn some American slang :)] I can now edit my earlier post with the skeptical misgivings about potential reliability problems. And also suggest that fireball3 reconsider his blacklisting of the card. [**] This should be of no concern to you, Zippi, because the test's methodology does not exactly mimic unRAID's behavior during Parity Checks & Rebuilds ... [I'm having trouble with a Geek=>Layperson on this ...Just trust me and ignore my "quibble"]. -- UhClem Nephew: "Uncle Gus, that ferryboat race was the biggest gamble in the world." Gus (WC Fields): "That was nothing, son. I remember when Lady Godiva put everything she had on a horse."
  18. Well, let's be sure ... type cd /boot ls -lt [dD]*_*.txt and is DM_after.txt at the top & DM_before.txt at the bottom? And the 4 dskt_out* in between (their order among each other doesn't matter)?
  19. Before I answer, just one final verification. Did the DM_before.txt file (that you attached) get created before the "for ... done" was executed, and was the DM_after.txt file created after that "for ... done" was executed? What I mean is : Was the entire 4-line test sequence performed, in its entirety, with the (final, and successful) "for ... done" line as line #2 ?? (The results do not have their full meaning unless they were generated as intended.) Thanks --UhClem Just a stranger in a (not so) strange land.
  20. Thank you very much! (You just might have saved/avoided an additional time[-differenced] window.) (Why the hell didn't he just say what he means then? Oh, wait, that's me!)
  21. Zippi, when you have the opportunity, I'd appreciate it if you could perform the following test: (With the SSD & 3 Reds connected back to those 4 (multiplied) ports, and a fresh boot-up of unRAID system) (and with your current directory in /boot where you would have the dskt script) dmesg > DM_before.txt for i in 1 2 3 4 ; do ./dskt O 50 a b c d > dskt_out_$i.txt & done wait dmesg | tail -99 > DM_after.txt (Be sure to replace the a b c d with the correct 4 drive letters for SSD & 3 Reds now.) Then, please paste into a reply post, the output from cat dskt_*.txt and attach to that post the two files DM_before.txt & DM_after.txt Thanks a lot. --UhClem
  22. Hi, Zippi. OK by me--I (think I) understood. [Between time-difference/job/machine-at-home, you had a narrow time window ...] And, since you want to learn, as do I, and probably more than a few of the folk still following this thread do also, I'm going to follow up with another test request in a few minutes ... --UhClem
  23. Good! The drive on sde, and the port itself, are fine. (Maybe just a little slow at the very very beginning. Or maybe not even that. It could be that that drive is a little slow in going from the "active/idle" state to the "active/active" state. Not to worry. But, if I (or you) were curious, reversing the numbers in the "for ..." line would tell the story. Thanks--now, there is a permanent place for this information. (We will leave the ID of the 5th port location for the next guy.) Yes, the actual downloaded file (dskt.txt) was moved, and renamed, when: >>> change that to mv /boot/dskt.txt /dskt I think you should keep "dskt" (it is tiny), but the question is "Where?" Guys, help me & Zippi out here ... [Again, I don't use unRAID]; what is the (non-volatile) equivalent of /usr/bin (or, maybe better [if it is in $PATH], $HOME/bin)? --UhClem
  24. There might be a problem with the sde drive (or even the port it's connected to). Run the following: for i in 0 1 3 5 10 20 do /dskt O $i e [that is a capital-O] done and please report the results.
  25. No we were just pushing it to its limits, so you could know how best to use it. You can definitely ignore those warnings. (They were [harmless] mistakes by unRAIDs logger.) No clear reason to change the card. You can even use the other 2 ports for other (than unRAID) drives--like a DVD/BluRay drive, or a backup drive thru an eSata adapter on the case rear. Or, if you really expand your unRAID array (beyond 9 drives total), you can put an additional unRAID data drives on those 2 ports. It just means that Parity Checks, and Array Rebuilds, will run ~15-25% slower. One last question (but no more tests) which 4 physical Sata ports were we just using? The four closest to the rear of the case, or the front of the case? thanks --UhClem "If you push something hard enough, it will fall over." Fud's First Law