Nothing yet.How did you find out? I used to buy Seagate Desktop Backup Expansion 3TB and found features cut even the internal label stated same model.
Nothing yet.How did you find out? I used to buy Seagate Desktop Backup Expansion 3TB and found features cut even the internal label stated same model.
I ordered 2 with the last deal, went back later in the day and ordered 3 more and they canceled the order of 3 without any email or anything. Newegg is a pain in the butt. Probably spend the few extra $$ and go through amazon for the rest...Well eff newegg, they processed one of my fubared orders (ordered 2 bundles of qty 3 for $299.99, one received one drive in each box so 2 out of 6).
They RP (replaced) two of them (should be here tomorrow) waited a few days until I harassed them again on status of second replacement (qty 2) then promptly RF (refunded) the other two and now are saying they are out of stock and they cannot price match the $100 per drive deal now...fark. NowIi am left w/ inconsistent devices or going to hunt them down elsewhere.
I have THE WORST luck w/ newegg. They are an atrocity to deal with!!!
Anyone wanna send two my way for price match? :-(
root@fio:~# fio --randrepeat=1 --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --name=testingtons --filename=5GBtestfile --bssplit=512/10:4k/60:8k/20:64k/10 --iodepth=64 --size=5G --readwrite=randrw --rwmixread=75
testingtons: (g=0): rw=randrw, bs=512-64K/512-64K/512-64K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=64
fio-2.2.10
Starting 1 process
testingtons: Laying out IO file(s) (1 file(s) / 5120MB)
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [m(1)] [100.0% done] [42716KB/14243KB/0KB /s] [10.6K/3597/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
testingtons: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=20860: Tue Jun 28 15:03:22 2016
read : io=3840.5MB, bw=53413KB/s, iops=9310, runt= 73626msec
slat (usec): min=2, max=102886, avg= 6.77, stdev=124.76
clat (usec): min=173, max=1145.5K, avg=4726.87, stdev=36592.98
lat (usec): min=178, max=1145.5K, avg=4733.83, stdev=36593.16
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 812], 5.00th=[ 1224], 10.00th=[ 1512], 20.00th=[ 1912],
| 30.00th=[ 2224], 40.00th=[ 2512], 50.00th=[ 2800], 60.00th=[ 3120],
| 70.00th=[ 3536], 80.00th=[ 4080], 90.00th=[ 5024], 95.00th=[ 5984],
| 99.00th=[ 9664], 99.50th=[15424], 99.90th=[839680], 99.95th=[978944],
| 99.99th=[1089536]
bw (KB /s): min= 252, max=141683, per=100.00%, avg=63664.65, stdev=33437.91
write: io=1279.6MB, bw=17796KB/s, iops=3104, runt= 73626msec
slat (usec): min=2, max=8013, avg= 8.11, stdev=26.96
clat (usec): min=445, max=1150.2K, avg=6403.53, stdev=44166.13
lat (usec): min=584, max=1150.2K, avg=6411.84, stdev=44166.12
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 1496], 5.00th=[ 1976], 10.00th=[ 2288], 20.00th=[ 2704],
| 30.00th=[ 3056], 40.00th=[ 3344], 50.00th=[ 3664], 60.00th=[ 4016],
| 70.00th=[ 4448], 80.00th=[ 5024], 90.00th=[ 6112], 95.00th=[ 7520],
| 99.00th=[12608], 99.50th=[28800], 99.90th=[929792], 99.95th=[1011712],
| 99.99th=[1089536]
bw (KB /s): min= 13, max=46623, per=100.00%, avg=20988.89, stdev=11169.21
lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.05%, 750=0.46%, 1000=1.33%
lat (msec) : 2=16.51%, 4=55.66%, 10=24.85%, 20=0.65%, 50=0.25%
lat (msec) : 100=0.01%, 250=0.01%, 500=0.02%, 750=0.05%, 1000=0.10%
lat (msec) : 2000=0.04%
cpu : usr=4.12%, sys=12.15%, ctx=215828, majf=0, minf=11
IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=0.1%, >=64=100.0%
submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.1%, >=64=0.0%
issued : total=r=685481/w=228538/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0, drop=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=64
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=3840.5MB, aggrb=53413KB/s, minb=53413KB/s, maxb=53413KB/s, mint=73626msec, maxt=73626msec
WRITE: io=1279.6MB, aggrb=17796KB/s, minb=17796KB/s, maxb=17796KB/s, mint=73626msec, maxt=73626msec
Disk stats (read/write):
dm-0: ios=684147/228175, merge=0/0, ticks=3208292/1452680, in_queue=4661368, util=99.94%, aggrios=679894/227833, aggrmerge=5591/748, aggrticks=3195640/1449700, aggrin_queue=4645596, aggrutil=99.90%
sda: ios=679894/227833, merge=5591/748, ticks=3195640/1449700, in_queue=4645596, util=99.90%
root@fio:~#
Funny thing is I am getting pretty decent performance outta that pool w/ rough fio stats and VM boot times are like 6-7 seconds :-D
Code:root@fio:~# fio --randrepeat=1 --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --name=testingtons --filename=5GBtestfile --bssplit=512/10:4k/60:8k/20:64k/10 --iodepth=64 --size=5G --readwrite=randrw --rwmixread=75 testingtons: (g=0): rw=randrw, bs=512-64K/512-64K/512-64K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=64 fio-2.2.10 Starting 1 process testingtons: Laying out IO file(s) (1 file(s) / 5120MB) Jobs: 1 (f=1): [m(1)] [100.0% done] [42716KB/14243KB/0KB /s] [10.6K/3597/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s] testingtons: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=20860: Tue Jun 28 15:03:22 2016 read : io=3840.5MB, bw=53413KB/s, iops=9310, runt= 73626msec slat (usec): min=2, max=102886, avg= 6.77, stdev=124.76 clat (usec): min=173, max=1145.5K, avg=4726.87, stdev=36592.98 lat (usec): min=178, max=1145.5K, avg=4733.83, stdev=36593.16 clat percentiles (usec): | 1.00th=[ 812], 5.00th=[ 1224], 10.00th=[ 1512], 20.00th=[ 1912], | 30.00th=[ 2224], 40.00th=[ 2512], 50.00th=[ 2800], 60.00th=[ 3120], | 70.00th=[ 3536], 80.00th=[ 4080], 90.00th=[ 5024], 95.00th=[ 5984], | 99.00th=[ 9664], 99.50th=[15424], 99.90th=[839680], 99.95th=[978944], | 99.99th=[1089536] bw (KB /s): min= 252, max=141683, per=100.00%, avg=63664.65, stdev=33437.91 write: io=1279.6MB, bw=17796KB/s, iops=3104, runt= 73626msec slat (usec): min=2, max=8013, avg= 8.11, stdev=26.96 clat (usec): min=445, max=1150.2K, avg=6403.53, stdev=44166.13 lat (usec): min=584, max=1150.2K, avg=6411.84, stdev=44166.12 clat percentiles (usec): | 1.00th=[ 1496], 5.00th=[ 1976], 10.00th=[ 2288], 20.00th=[ 2704], | 30.00th=[ 3056], 40.00th=[ 3344], 50.00th=[ 3664], 60.00th=[ 4016], | 70.00th=[ 4448], 80.00th=[ 5024], 90.00th=[ 6112], 95.00th=[ 7520], | 99.00th=[12608], 99.50th=[28800], 99.90th=[929792], 99.95th=[1011712], | 99.99th=[1089536] bw (KB /s): min= 13, max=46623, per=100.00%, avg=20988.89, stdev=11169.21 lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.05%, 750=0.46%, 1000=1.33% lat (msec) : 2=16.51%, 4=55.66%, 10=24.85%, 20=0.65%, 50=0.25% lat (msec) : 100=0.01%, 250=0.01%, 500=0.02%, 750=0.05%, 1000=0.10% lat (msec) : 2000=0.04% cpu : usr=4.12%, sys=12.15%, ctx=215828, majf=0, minf=11 IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=0.1%, >=64=100.0% submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.1%, >=64=0.0% issued : total=r=685481/w=228538/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0, drop=r=0/w=0/d=0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=64 Run status group 0 (all jobs): READ: io=3840.5MB, aggrb=53413KB/s, minb=53413KB/s, maxb=53413KB/s, mint=73626msec, maxt=73626msec WRITE: io=1279.6MB, aggrb=17796KB/s, minb=17796KB/s, maxb=17796KB/s, mint=73626msec, maxt=73626msec Disk stats (read/write): dm-0: ios=684147/228175, merge=0/0, ticks=3208292/1452680, in_queue=4661368, util=99.94%, aggrios=679894/227833, aggrmerge=5591/748, aggrticks=3195640/1449700, aggrin_queue=4645596, aggrutil=99.90% sda: ios=679894/227833, merge=5591/748, ticks=3195640/1449700, in_queue=4645596, util=99.90% root@fio:~#
The big draw of these drives is the 2.5" form factor. I have this spreadsheet to work out the price/value of the hdd's HD SpaceA decent sale on the 8tb mybook enclosures could bring 3.5's back as competitive in the near future and make those enclosures useful again. But at 2.5x the price for the same capacity they don't make sense today. I'm curious why it's pricing is so stable while these 4tb drives seem to be all over the place(not to complain 100usd even makes them so tempting my wallet cries)
Based on how SLOW of a trickle a sVMotion is running to get it back on that pool now that I have removed cache devices I am assuming these are gonna be d|ck in the d|rt SLOW w/out read/write cache devices, will report back in a bit after this piggy finishes up.Can you do any tests without the SLC cache just to see what native performance looks like?
Well I wasn't expecting fast, I thought they might have expected saturating gige for sequential with an array like yours though, looking forward to the numbers.Based on how SLOW of a trickle a sVMotion is running to get it back on that pool now that I have removed cache devices I am assuming these are gonna be d|ck in the d|rt SLOW w/out read/write cache devices, will report back in a bit after this piggy finishes up.
yeah that's why i pointed at the 8tb/250 wd mybook, if it went below 200 it would be cheaper/TB than the 4tb 2.5's with an advantage of less cabling and ports required(but worse redundancy in smaller arrays due to less drives for parity) agreed on the space advantage though, I can fit these places i can't put a 3.5 ever(I actually have some laptops with 15mm bays still!)The big draw of these drives is the 2.5" form factor. I have this spreadsheet to work out the price/value of the hdd's HD Space
Right now 5TB drives seem to be about the best TB/$ but I can fit 16 of the 2.5 in the space of 8 3.5
How active are the VMs you're performing Storage vMotion on? At least initially, Storage vMotion should be mainly sequential and, assuming no file fragmentation, roll along pretty fast.EDIT: Odd, CIFS copy went to a single disk @ 65-75MBps, sVMotions must be pretty damned intense and need those caching devs.