Kaydol

Flood göndermek, insanların floodlarını okumak ve diğer insanlarla bağlantı kurmak için sosyal Floodlar ve Flood Yanıtları Motorumuza kaydolun.

Oturum aç

Flood göndermek, insanların floodlarını okumak ve diğer insanlarla bağlantı kurmak için sosyal Floodlar ve Flood Yanıtları Motorumuza giriş yapın.

Şifremi hatırlamıyorum

Şifreni mi unuttun? Lütfen e-mail adresinizi giriniz. Bir bağlantı alacaksınız ve e-posta yoluyla yeni bir şifre oluşturacaksınız.

3 ve kadim dostu 1 olan sj'yi rakamla giriniz. ( 31 )

Üzgünüz, Flood yazma yetkiniz yok, Flood girmek için giriş yapmalısınız.

Lütfen bu Floodun neden bildirilmesi gerektiğini düşündüğünüzü kısaca açıklayın.

Lütfen bu cevabın neden bildirilmesi gerektiğini kısaca açıklayın.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Low Throughput_Performance and ZFS resilver times on some recent Easystore models – anyone else seeing impact?

Sorry for the long post, but I’m kind of at my wits’ end here.

I recently purchased a good amount of 14TB Easystores (WD140EDGZ) during Best Buy’s recent sale. As I began testing and integrating them into my existing NAS, I noticed a very odd pattern.

My experience is that there are (at least) two drive models, and they perform very differently during ZFS resilvers:

* Slow: WDC WD140EDGZ-11B2DA2
* No Issues: WDC WD140EDGZ-11B1PA0

My testing has been somewhat erratic, but here’s my methodology for burn-in:

1. Short SMART test
2. Full badblocks test
3. Short SMART test

After running 1 drive through (11B2DA2), I didn’t notice anything immediately odd, and put it into my NAS to start resilvering. The ETA for resilvering was ~3.5 days at about ~150MB/s. This should have been the first red flag, but as I didn’t have much experience with drives this large (I’m moving from 8tb to 14tb), and my pool is hovering above 80%, I chalked it up to older hardware and a massive amount of data. I did this with one more drive (11B2DA2), and then by chance, I shucked a 11B1PA0.

Resilvering times jumped to ~12h.

I immediately suspected SMR, and so I ran `fio` as detailed [here](https://operand.ca/2020/04/30/smr_drive_detection_and_benchmarking_with_fio.html) to compare the two models, but they benchmarked similarly, so that’s out, thankfully.

I then swapped a 11B2DA2 in my array that had taken ~3.5d with a fresh 11B1PA0 to rule out a drive bay issue – again, resilvering took ~12h.

Finally, I compared `smartctl` output for 2 11B2DA2 and 2 11B1PA0, after forcing them to output `Throughput_Performance` with `smartctl -t offline`.

I normally take SMART data with a huge grain of salt, but the results seemed telling:

11B2DA2 #1:
2 Throughput_Performance 0x0004 146 146 054 Old_age Offline – 57

11B2DA2 #2:
2 Throughput_Performance 0x0004 144 144 054 Old_age Offline – 64

11B1PA0 #1:
2 Throughput_Performance 0x0004 132 132 054 Old_age Offline – 112

11B1PA0 #2:
2 Throughput_Performance 0x0004 133 133 054 Old_age Offline – 108

I’m thoroughly confused by this, as I can’t get this performance hit to show up anywhere aside from ZFS resilvering and `Throughput_Performance`. Searching beforehand, I only found one similar [post](https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/qrx6vd/throughput_performance_low/) by /u/OldWorlDisorder about this.

Does anyone else have any similar data or experience?

EDIT 11/19/21: I haven’t been able to come to a conclusion that I’m happy with on this. I’m going to just get some proper drives to replace the 11B2DA2 that I was shipped, since they under-perform for me. If anyone has any other thoughts or experience, or want me to run any tests, feel free to comment, but I’m giving up investigating for now. Thanks all for the comments.

Benzer Yazılar

Yorum eklemek için giriş yapmalısınız.

7 Yorumları

  1. It looks like the 11B2DA2 units may be throttled to perform closer to 5400 rpm levels, even though they show 7200 rpm. **Has anyone else verified this?** I picked up 2 units from Best Buy store yesterday and crystal mark shows them as 11B2DA2 with helium and 7200 rpm. Have not run any performance tests though.

    https://ibb.co/n10w2ZX

    Bestbuy WD 14TB smartctl info pre-shuck from DataHoarder

  2. I suspect the pool was made with wrong ashift, and new disks are less error-prone for inappropriate use of 512 bytes offsets (seems repurposed enterprise models, not desktop ones as others).

  3. I just installed two drives, and checked them to find one of each model, as well.

    I replaced a 2 x 4TB mirror vdev, without too much difference in speed, though. The first replacement took 12 hours (11B1PA0 model), the second took 10 hours (11B2DA2). That made sense to me, as the newer drive is likely faster than the older 4TB drive, so it didn’t stand out to me as odd.

    That said, I’m adding this comment because of the odd values I see when I run hdparm.

    Specifically, check the Logical Sector Size info.

    11B2DA2:

    ATA device, with non-removable media
    Model Number: WDC WD140EDGZ-11B2DA2
    Firmware Revision: 85.00A85
    Transport: Serial, ATA8-AST, SATA 1.0a, SATA II Extensions, SATA Rev 2.5, SATA Rev 2.6, SATA Rev 3.0; Revision: ATA8-AST T13 Project D1697 Revision 0b
    Standards:
    Used: unknown (minor revision code 0x009c)
    Supported: 11 10 9 8 7 6 5
    Likely used: 11
    Configuration:
    Logical max current
    cylinders 16383 16383
    heads 16 16
    sectors/track 63 63

    CHS current addressable sectors: 16514064
    LBA user addressable sectors: 268435455
    LBA48 user addressable sectors: 27344764928
    Logical Sector size: 512 bytes [ Supported: 2048 256 ]
    Physical Sector size: 4096 bytes
    Logical Sector-0 offset: 0 bytes
    device size with M = 1024*1024: 13351936 MBytes
    device size with M = 1000*1000: 14000519 MBytes (14000 GB)
    cache/buffer size = unknown
    Form Factor: 3.5 inch
    Nominal Media Rotation Rate: 7200

    11B1PA0:

    ATA device, with non-removable media
    Model Number: WDC WD140EDGZ-11B1PA0
    Firmware Revision: 85.00A85
    Transport: Serial, ATA8-AST, SATA 1.0a, SATA II Extensions, SATA Rev 2.5, SATA Rev 2.6, SATA Rev 3.0; Revision: ATA8-AST T13 Project D1697 Revision 0b
    Standards:
    Used: unknown (minor revision code 0x0029)
    Supported: 9 8 7 6 5
    Likely used: 9
    Configuration:
    Logical max current
    cylinders 16383 16383
    heads 16 16
    sectors/track 63 63

    CHS current addressable sectors: 16514064
    LBA user addressable sectors: 268435455
    LBA48 user addressable sectors: 27344764928
    Logical Sector size: 512 bytes [ Supported: 4096 4160 4224 512 520 528 ]
    Physical Sector size: 4096 bytes
    Logical Sector-0 offset: 0 bytes
    device size with M = 1024*1024: 13351936 MBytes
    device size with M = 1000*1000: 14000519 MBytes (14000 GB)
    cache/buffer size = unknown
    Form Factor: 3.5 inch
    Nominal Media Rotation Rate: 7200

    I have another set of 14TB drives, both WD140EDFZ-11A0VA0, and those both show:

    Logical Sector size: 512 bytes [ Supported: 4096 4160 4224 512 520 528 ]

    I’ve got another couple of drives, so I’ll have to see how things go. The fact that my speed didn’t seem horrible makes me want to not care, but the supported logical sector list seems really odd to me.

    If my speeds ARE bad, and I’m just not doing the math correctly, feel free to point that out for me, please. Maybe they are junk and I’m just not thinking properly. Maybe the one was slow due to the older 4TB drive, and the other was slow due to the oddball 14TB drive…

  4. I may have a related problem.
    I had a drive throwing off sata errors so I connected two of the new 14TBs I bought in parallel with the existing disks, and replaced both the disk with errors and another of the 10TB disks I was replacing. Then the rebuild time climbed to 21 days. I thought WTF thats nuts, but I thought it could be because the pool is 96% full, or because of the disk with sata errors. So I deleted ~10TB of data I had else where and that dropped me to 88% full, and 19 days to resilver. Then I thought it could be that bad drive slowing things down, and Its a Z2 array and I would still be protected from another failure so I offlined the “bad” drive and that improved things to 14 days. That is where I left it. I bought 9 14TB drives and 2 are different and newer. Different PCB design and slightly different performance.
    https://photos.app.goo.gl/NbtAYM8bZMTwZeeK9

  5. Holy crap, I lucked out. I shucked out 3 Easystores this past 4 days (All 11B1PA0) and had no performance issues (replaced 3 10TB shucked Easystores that were at 95%, Took about 30 hours to resilver each one).

  6. It’s interesting that ‘fio’ reports similar performance between the different models but resilver is so different. I trust you didn’t notice much difference when running badblocks?

    I wonder if it’s a 4K vs 512b sector issue…

  7. Can it be 4K vs 512 bytes sectors, native and emulated? No idea how to check for that really …