Selfhosted

39151 readers

889 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam posting.
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.world

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.hybridsarcasm.xyz

Different "geometries" for same disk model? (feddit.de)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by Hopfgeist@feddit.de to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

4 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I know that for decades now, hard disks don't really reveal their actual internal geometry (which is complicated anyway, since inner cylinders may have fewer sectors than outer cylinders, etc.), and present fictional geometries to satisfy legacy software, but I found it weird anyway.

I have a ZFS raidz2 NAS which originally consisted of 8x2 TB SAS disks and is now in the process of being live-upgraded to 8x4 TB (change disks one by one, resilver, change, resilver, etc ...)

I now have four of the disks replaced, and in NetBSD they all report different geometries. They all report the exact same number of total blocks, so it's not actually an issue, but still strange.

sd0 at scsibus0 target 0 lun 0: <SEAGATE, ST4000NM0023, GE11> disk fixed

sd0: 3726 GB, 330809 cyl, 10 head, 2362 sec, 512 bytes/sect x 7814037168 sectors

sd1 at scsibus0 target 1 lun 0: <SEAGATE, ST4000NM0023, GE11> disk fixed

sd1: 3726 GB, 348145 cyl, 10 head, 2244 sec, 512 bytes/sect x 7814037168 sectors

sd3 at scsibus0 target 3 lun 0: <IBM-B040, ST4000NM0023, BC5P> disk fixed

sd3: 3726 GB, 342419 cyl, 10 head, 2282 sec, 512 bytes/sect x 7814037168 sectors

sd7 at scsibus0 target 7 lun 0: <IBM-B040, ST4000NM0023, BC5P> disk fixed

sd7: 3726 GB, 341874 cyl, 10 head, 2285 sec, 512 bytes/sect x 7814037168 sectors

Two of them are IBM-branded (although they are in fact all Seagate Constellation ES.3), so I might expect slight differences, but even those with the same branding and the same revision present different geometries.

Anyway, probably just a curiosity, it will be interesting to find what the remaining four disks will show.

I might add that the older 2 TB disks (Seagate Constalleation ES, IBM-branded) all show the exact same geometry:

sd2 at scsibus0 target 2 lun 0: <IBM-ESXS, ST32000444SS, BC2D> disk fixed

sd2: 1863 GB, 249000 cyl, 8 head, 1961 sec, 512 bytes/sect x 3907029168 sectors

sd4 at scsibus0 target 4 lun 0: <IBM-ESXS, ST32000444SS, BC2D> disk fixed

sd4: 1863 GB, 249000 cyl, 8 head, 1961 sec, 512 bytes/sect x 3907029168 sectors

sd5 at scsibus0 target 5 lun 0: <IBM-ESXS, ST32000444SS, BC2D> disk fixed

sd5: 1863 GB, 249000 cyl, 8 head, 1961 sec, 512 bytes/sect x 3907029168 sectors

sd6 at scsibus0 target 6 lun 0: <IBM-ESXS, ST32000444SS, BC2D> disk fixed

sd6: 1863 GB, 249000 cyl, 8 head, 1961 sec, 512 bytes/sect x 3907029168 sectors

top 4 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Hopfgeist@feddit.de 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I'm not touching that post again. But a small rant about typesetting in lemmy: It seems there is no way whatsoever to put angle brackets in a "code" section. In an overzealous attempt to prevent HTML injection, everything in angle brackets is just removed when posting (although it remains there in preview). In normal text, you can use "<", but not inside "code" segments, where it will be retained verbatim.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 6 points 10 months ago

In an overzealous attempt to prevent HTML injection

I think that they were actually getting hit with attacks.

googles

Yeah:

https://lemmy.world/post/3986993

Yeah I think this was hastily done to prevent the XSS injection attacks that were happening IIRC. They implemented encoding for content, but looks like they never got around to fully decoding it.

[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Maybe the larger disks have some sort of expected defective bits of the physical disks since it becomes increasingly difficult to produce flawless ones? Also, I am pretty sure ZFS didn't even exist yet the last time anyone used cylinders/heads/sectors for anything. That is something from the parallel ATA era and not even close to the end of that.

[–] Hopfgeist@feddit.de 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Sure, SCSI disks will show their defective list ("primary defects", as delivered by the factory, and grown defects, accumulated during use), and they all have a couple hundred primary defects. But I don't see why that would affect the reported geometry, given that it is fictional, anway. And all disks have enough spare tracks to accommodate for the defects, and offer the specified full number of total sectors, even for long list of grown defects. Incidentally, all the 4TB disks are still "perfect" in that they have no grown defects.

And yes, ever since LBA, nobody has used sectors and cylinders for anything.