Hardware Errors on Mirrored 750GB Seagate Disk on NV+(4.1.6)

[StephenB]

Would WD give me a new drive under their guarantee if it's running hot (but drive is accessible?)

Not sure, but if they do you would get a refurbished replacement. If you think the drive is malfunctioning, it might be better to return it to the seller. Amazon for instance will replace with no questions asked.

[SuperFlyBoy]

Not sure, but if they do you would get a refurbished replacement. If you think the drive is malfunctioning, it might be better to return it to the seller. Amazon for instance will replace with no questions asked.

Unfortunately, I didn't buy it in the US (as I would usually do - due to the urgent need of replacing the 750GB drive showing errors), so therefore went locally outside the US. (for even more $$!)

Will have to explore the option with the local distributor here in India...not sure anything will result from it though!

[SuperFlyBoy]

Yes X-RAID uses the capacity of the smallest disk.

Yes, I show this right now:

RAID Configuration
Configuration: X-RAID (Expandable RAID), 2 disks
Status: Redundant
RAID Disks:
Ch 1 : Seagate ST3750640NS [698 GB] 694 GB allocated
Ch 2 : WDC WD2002FAEX-007BA0 [1862 GB] 694 GB allocated

The question would then be, how do I expand the capacity of the larger drives?

If I add more disks of 2TB, will they start to use the full capacity of the 2TB drives?

I gather I should do the backup of the data and then reset the unit - is that the only option?

For 2TB disks you should be running RAIDiator 4.1.7 or later.

Also if your 2TB disk is 4k sector you will want to do a backup followed by a factory reset.

Should one be using a disk formatted with 4k sectors? Is that the recommended method?

[mdgm]

The question would then be, how do I expand the capacity of the larger drives?

Replace all the lower capacity disks with 2TB disks.

If I add more disks of 2TB, will they start to use the full capacity of the 2TB drives?

Only if all the disks installed are 2TB disks.

I gather I should do the backup of the data and then reset the unit - is that the only option?

To get 4k sector partition alignment, yes.

For 2TB disks you should be running RAIDiator 4.1.7 or later.

Also if your 2TB disk is 4k sector you will want to do a backup followed by a factory reset.

Should one be using a disk formatted with 4k sectors? Is that the recommended method?

Disks either use 4k sectors or 512-byte sectors. If the partitions are aligned for 512-byte sectors but not for 4k sectors you will have poor write performance if you use any 4k sector disks. So if you choose any 4k sector disks you will need to make sure you are running 4.1.7 or later, backup your data and do a factory reset.

Btw if you download your logs (Status > Logs > Download all logs), extract the zip contents and take a look at volume.log what is the block size?

[SuperFlyBoy]

Btw if you download your logs (Status > Logs > Download all logs), extract the zip contents and take a look at volume.log what is the block size?

As per the logs:

Block size: 16384

[mdgm]

Good. That's a separate issue I was wondering about.

So it's just the 4k sector partition alignment that needs to be considered.

[SuperFlyBoy]

Good. That's a separate issue I was wondering about.

So it's just the 4k sector partition alignment that needs to be considered.

Sorry for being dense - but doesn't this mean that the block size is 16k, rather than 4k or 512 bytes?

[mdgm]

The block size of the volume is a completely different issue to the partition alignment of the partitions on your drives.

[SuperFlyBoy]

Partition log:

Disk /dev/hdc doesn't contain a valid partition table

Disk /dev/hdc: 750.1 GB, 750145888256 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 91200 cylinders, total 1465128688 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x00000000

Disk /dev/hde: 750.1 GB, 750145888256 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 91200 cylinders, total 1465128688 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x00000000

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/hde1 2 4096001 2048000 83 Linux
Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary.
/dev/hde2 4096002 4608001 256000 82 Linux swap / Solaris
Partition 2 does not end on cylinder boundary.
/dev/hde3 4608002 1465112305 730252152 5 Extended
/dev/hde5 4608003 1465112305 730252151+ 8e Linux LVM

[mdgm]

As I suspected disks are not 4k sector partition aligned.

[SuperFlyBoy]

As I suspected disks are not 4k sector partition aligned.

But is there any benefit to 4k sector partition alignment - other than (I think) the greater amount of data that can be written to the disk/s? (Thus, greater efficiency?)

[mdgm]

If you purchase disks that are 4k sector disks you will have poor write performance if you don't have 4k sector partition alignment.

[SuperFlyBoy]

If you purchase disks that are 4k sector disks you will have poor write performance if you don't have 4k sector partition alignment.

Is there any benefit to using the 4k sector disks?

[StephenB]

Is there any benefit to using the 4k sector disks?

They provide > 2TB capacities

[mdgm]

The NV+ (v1) can only use drives up to 2TB in capacity. With the transition to drives larger than 2TB in capacity lots of 2TB drives have been released with 4k sectors in preparation for the 3TB and 4TB drives that have since been released. Now the question you have to ask is even if your disks are not 4k sector disks and the 2TB disks you purchase aren't 4k sector disks if you need replacements in a few years time will there be non-4k sector disks available?