HGST 8TB SAS HUH728080AL5200

bbqdt

Member
Sep 15, 2019
52
23
8
Got 2
2015, 25tb written, 360 days up
2017, 68tb written, 70 days up

less than 10 power cycles on each
 
  • Like
Reactions: Samir

UhClem

Member
Jun 26, 2012
55
22
8
NH, USA
Update, just needed to do

sg_format --format --size=4096 /dev/da12

and

=== START OF INFORMATION SECTION ===
Vendor: HGST
Product: H7280A520SUN8.0T
Revision: PD51
Compliance: SPC-4
User Capacity: 8,001,563,222,016 bytes [8.00 TB]
Logical block size: 4096 bytes
LU is fully provisioned

...

I see no reason to use 512e in my use-case since I'm working with 4K ashift anyways.
Was anyone able to get full capacity (8.0TB [vs 7.86TB]) with 512e format?

I did a
sg_format --format --size=512 /dev/sdX
and (13 hours later) the only change was that the "protection information" was no longer reported. The original (pre- sg_format) smartctl reported:
...
User capacity: 7,865,536,647,168 [7.86TB]
Logical block size: 512 bytes
Physical block size: 4096 bytes
>> Formatted with type 1 protection
>> 8 bytes of protection information per logical block
LU is fully provisioned
...
Following the sg_format, the smartctl report was the same except that the 2 >> lines were absent. [but capacity remained 7.86TB]

I'd really like to get that additional 1.5% capacity (and performance), but unlike @SirCrest , I need to stay 512e.

Thanks!
 
  • Like
Reactions: epicurean and Samir

Fritz

Well-Known Member
Apr 6, 2015
2,151
508
113
66
I had to format 3 of mine to 4096 to get full capacity. Took a day each.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Samir

Samir

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2017
1,416
428
83
45
I had to format 3 of mine to 4096 to get full capacity. Took a day each.
Do you think formatting them back to 512e would still yield the same capacity? Or do you think it would go back to 7.86 again?
 

UhClem

Member
Jun 26, 2012
55
22
8
NH, USA
Do you think formatting them back to 512e would still yield the same capacity? Or do you think it would go back to 7.86 again?
I thought of trying that, but for me, I'm concerned that I might get stuck at 4Kn. And, I want/need 512e (a little) more than I desire the extra space/speed.

If anyone does try that, please report back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Samir

Fritz

Well-Known Member
Apr 6, 2015
2,151
508
113
66
I thought of trying that, but for me, I'm concerned that I might get stuck at 4Kn. And, I want/need 512e (a little) more than I desire the extra space/speed.

If anyone does try that, please report back.
Why do you need 512e?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Samir

Fritz

Well-Known Member
Apr 6, 2015
2,151
508
113
66
Do you think formatting them back to 512e would still yield the same capacity? Or do you think it would go back to 7.86 again?
Don't know but it would take a whole day to find out and 4096 works for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Samir

Samir

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2017
1,416
428
83
45
Don't know but it would take a whole day to find out and 4096 works for me.
I know if I needed to know I'd be willing to compensate you for your time if you could run the test for me. ;)
 

UhClem

Member
Jun 26, 2012
55
22
8
NH, USA
Why do you need 512e?
I often/occasionally make image copies of partitions [between drives] (with dd) and all my other drives are 512e. At that (relatively) low level, I'm pretty sure that the LBA #s need to have the same "geometry" (ie not differ by x8). Anyone have experience that says different?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Samir

Fritz

Well-Known Member
Apr 6, 2015
2,151
508
113
66
I know if I needed to know I'd be willing to compensate you for your time if you could run the test for me. ;)
Shoulda asked earlier. At present I'm copying my entire media collection to a spanned volume consisting of all 4 drives. It's 30 percent into the copy so too late now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Samir

epicurean

Active Member
Sep 29, 2014
676
42
28
Using i
Was anyone able to get full capacity (8.0TB [vs 7.86TB]) with 512e format?

I did a
sg_format --format --size=512 /dev/sdX
and (13 hours later) the only change was that the "protection information" was no longer reported. The original (pre- sg_format) smartctl reported:

Following the sg_format, the smartctl report was the same except that the 2 >> lines were absent. [but capacity remained 7.86TB]

I'd really like to get that additional 1.5% capacity (and performance), but unlike @SirCrest , I need to stay 512e.

Thanks!
Intending to use my drives for Napp It storage. DO I need to stay 512e or format to 4k?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Samir

SirCrest

New Member
Sep 5, 2016
18
20
3
30
Florida
If you give me a day or so I can format one of mine back to 512e.

I don't have spare bays right now, so I offlined my ZFS pool replaced a bunch of disks with the new HGST SAS disks to format them in bulk. Then put back in the old disks to resilver one by one. Just finished formatting them all to 4Kn, but now 6 are sitting idle on my desk as I resilver.

I can format one of them to 512e in the meantime to see if it stays at 8TB.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UhClem and Samir

Samir

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2017
1,416
428
83
45
Shoulda asked earlier. At present I'm copying my entire media collection to a spanned volume consisting of all 4 drives. It's 30 percent into the copy so too late now.
All good! How's the transfer rates?
 

eroji

Active Member
Dec 1, 2015
268
44
28
37
What capacity are you guys seeing after format? I tried both 4k and 512 but the drive is still showing as 7.15TB in TrueNAS.

This is the diskinfo
Code:
        512             # sectorsize
        7865536647168   # mediasize in bytes (7.2T)
        15362376264     # mediasize in sectors
        4096            # stripesize
        0               # stripeoffset
        956263          # Cylinders according to firmware.
        255             # Heads according to firmware.
        63              # Sectors according to firmware.
        HGST H7280A520SUN8.0T   # Disk descr.
        001703PXB1WV        VLKXB1WV    # Disk ident.
        id1,enc@n5001c45000957abd/type@0/slot@3/elmdesc@Slot_002        # Physical path
        No              # TRIM/UNMAP support
        7200            # Rotation rate in RPM
        Not_Zoned       # Zone Mode
Versus the 8TB I currently have in the vdev.
Code:
        512             # sectorsize
        8001563222016   # mediasize in bytes (7.3T)
        15628053168     # mediasize in sectors
        4096            # stripesize
        0               # stripeoffset
        972801          # Cylinders according to firmware.
        255             # Heads according to firmware.
        63              # Sectors according to firmware.
        ATA WDC WD80EMAZ-00W    # Disk descr.
        7HK49B3F                # Disk ident.
        id1,enc@n5001c45000957abd/type@0/slot@4/elmdesc@Slot_003        # Physical path
        No              # TRIM/UNMAP support
        5400            # Rotation rate in RPM
        Not_Zoned       # Zone Mode
 
  • Like
Reactions: Samir