Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:23:56 -0800 From: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> To: Dan Naumov <dan.naumov@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD-STABLE Mailing List <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: immense delayed write to file system (ZFS and UFS2), performance issues Message-ID: <087264FA-3E22-4855-BC38-346ADF22F422@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <cf9b1ee01001261045j3b0901cen74469a545e47fb49@mail.gmail.com> References: <cf9b1ee01001261045j3b0901cen74469a545e47fb49@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi-- On Jan 26, 2010, at 10:45 AM, Dan Naumov wrote: > 9 Power_On_Hours 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age > Always - 136 > 193 Load_Cycle_Count 0x0032 199 199 000 Old_age > Always - 5908 > > The disks are of exact same model and look to be same firmware. Should > I be worried that the newer disk has, in 136 hours reached a higher > Load Cycle count twice as big as on the disk thats 5253 hours old? Yes. Drive actuators are (or used to be) typically rated for at least 50,000 load-cycle counts; at ~1000 events per day, there's about a 50% chance of such a drive dying before two years are up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_drive#Landing_zones_and_load.2Funload_technology Some models of drives intended for laptops (typically smaller 2.5" form factor w/ single platter) can tolerate many more load-cycles, and newer drives also claim to handle more. Regards, -- -Chuck
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?087264FA-3E22-4855-BC38-346ADF22F422>