|
Post by N2100Owner on Nov 24, 2006 0:12:44 GMT 7
I was about to purchase two Seagate ST3500630AS drives for a Raid 1 configuration ... Some Seagate drives are in the driver source code black list as my previous post.
|
|
|
Post by fhall1 on Dec 12, 2006 6:53:07 GMT 7
Running two Seagate ST3320620AS (320 Gig) drives in RAID 1 with no problems
|
|
|
Post by fritze on Dec 17, 2006 1:58:31 GMT 7
I am using 2x 750GB Seagate. (7200.10 Series) in Raid 1 It had cut me off few times transfering last gigs of folders. (10+gigs) P.S, It took about 4/hrs to build and format altogether. Note: EXTREMELY HOT!!! When Touch with hands <Case Close> System Temperature 41 / 106 (°C / °F) HDD Temperature 41 / 106 (°C / °F) <Case Opened> System Temperature 41 / 106 (°C / °F) HDD Temperature 39 / 102 (°C / °F) Yup, same drives, getting the same temperatures here. No problems otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by chemist on Dec 18, 2006 19:24:31 GMT 7
41C is quite OK I think... My drives (same model) frequently rise to 50C !! (multiple torrents). But with 5 yrs warranty I don't care; it's the reason I bought the drives
|
|
|
Post by dbridges on Dec 19, 2006 9:21:30 GMT 7
I'm running two seagate ST3200822AS 200GB drives in my n2100.
I finally discovered the dmesg command and this is part of what came up...
It seems that they're being wound back to UDMA/100
I guess that you should definately drop segate disks from your shopping list if your really after maximum performance.
They've worked without a problem though.
|
|
|
Post by chemist on Dec 19, 2006 17:20:26 GMT 7
I guess that you should definately drop segate disks from your shopping list if your really after maximum performance. I wouldn't know why.... Even at ATA100 the drive cannot use the full available bandwith since the max throughput is around 70MB/s ...
|
|
|
Post by dbridges on Dec 20, 2006 5:12:30 GMT 7
I guess that you should definately drop segate disks from your shopping list if your really after maximum performance. I wouldn't know why.... Even at ATA100 the drive cannot use the full available bandwith since the max throughput is around 70MB/s ... The maximum throughput of what?!?! Please correct me if i'm wrong but given the pci-x controller and the gigabit ethernet the only remaining bottlenecks are the drives and the cpu... The drive's should make a difference.
|
|
|
Post by chemist on Dec 20, 2006 17:55:59 GMT 7
Please correct me if i'm wrong but given the pci-x controller and the gigabit ethernet the only remaining bottlenecks are the drives and the cpu... The drive's should make a difference. True, but since the drives are physically not able to deliver more than 70MB/s I don't think it will matter much if they are working at ATA100 or SATA150. The difference in performance will only be measurable for files coming from the cache, but I doubt if anyone notices the difference between 16/100th and 16/150th of a second ....
|
|
|
Post by dbridges on Dec 21, 2006 6:31:11 GMT 7
Please correct me if i'm wrong but given the pci-x controller and the gigabit ethernet the only remaining bottlenecks are the drives and the cpu... The drive's should make a difference. True, but since the drives are physically not able to deliver more than 70MB/s I don't think it will matter much if they are working at ATA100 or SATA150. The difference in performance will only be measurable for files coming from the cache, but I doubt if anyone notices the difference between 16/100th and 16/150th of a second .... Fair enough
|
|
|
Post by maximehilaire on Jan 1, 2007 23:36:50 GMT 7
I have two Samsung HD400LJ in a RAID1 configuration (381,554Mb). They seemed to be ok... until i changed to 2.1.03, yesterday. (I got my N2100 3 days ago) Now, the status is "Degraded" hereunder , what i did : 1 - Change Firmware to 2.1.03 (OK) 2 - Try to reconstruct RAID 1 (rmq 32 from the 'Thecus download center') 3 - The result : always stop at 45.1% and automaticly re-try 4 - i Suppressed the partitions (thanks to my pc) 5 - put back the disks in my N2100 6 - try to reconstruct RAID 1 7 - result : wait a long time at the same place, but finished with the status 'Healthy' 8 - Unfortunately, a short time later, the status was 'DEGRATED' Did you exprecienced the same issue ? Did you think it might come from the disk ?
|
|
|
Post by getmythe on Jan 2, 2007 17:48:20 GMT 7
In case you have access via ssh try this command "mdadm --detail /dev/md0". It will give you a more detailed answer of what might be wrong with your drives. What does the Status line report?
|
|
|
Post by dbridges on Jan 3, 2007 8:06:17 GMT 7
I have two Samsung HD400LJ in a RAID1 configuration (381,554Mb). They seemed to be ok... until i changed to 2.1.03, yesterday. (I got my N2100 3 days ago) Now, the status is "Degraded" hereunder , what i did : 1 - Change Firmware to 2.1.03 (OK) 2 - Try to reconstruct RAID 1 (rmq 32 from the 'Thecus download center') 3 - The result : always stop at 45.1% and automaticly re-try 4 - i Suppressed the partitions (thanks to my pc) 5 - put back the disks in my N2100 6 - try to reconstruct RAID 1 7 - result : wait a long time at the same place, but finished with the status 'Healthy' 8 - Unfortunately, a short time later, the status was 'DEGRATED' Did you exprecienced the same issue ? Did you think it might come from the disk ? Please repost in a new thread so that we dont take this thread off topic. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by maximehilaire on Jan 3, 2007 12:41:36 GMT 7
|
|
|
Post by maximehilaire on Jan 9, 2007 5:34:28 GMT 7
Western Digital 40GB WD400 works fine. Tested in a RAID 1 config.
Drive parameters : LBA 78125000
|
|
|
Post by sbv3000 on Apr 24, 2007 14:09:45 GMT 7
Hi All
Has anyone tried Western Digital WD5000AAKS (16MB cache) drives?
I've installed a pair of these to create a raid 1 however the raid creation fails.
The disks are reported as installed correctly/capacity etc
Thanks in advance
|
|