Request: support "advanced format" harddisk when install proxmox

[svr678]

I got 2 machines with af harddisk and very slow performance after install with proxmox iso, finally I have to install debian/aptitude proxmox step by step, please support it in the iso, that would be convenient to user, is it a good idea?

 

[dietmar]

I got 2 machines with af harddisk and very slow performance after install with proxmox iso, finally I have to install debian/aptitude proxmox step by step, please support it in the iso, that would be convenient to user, is it a good idea?

Sorry, your posting is very confusing. The standard install is quite fast, so I do not really know what you are talking about. What do you mean by 'advanced format'?

Anyways, feel free to use the Debian installer if you prefer that. There are no plans to add further features to our installation tool.

 

[e100]

Sorry, your posting is very confusing. The standard install is quite fast, so I do not really know what you are talking about. What do you mean by 'advanced format'?

Anyways, feel free to use the Debian installer if you prefer that. There are no plans to add further features to our installation tool.

He is referring to newer hard drives that have 4K sectors instead of the classic 512Byte sectors.
The reason it ends up being slow is the installer likely did not align the partitions a 4K boundary.

This is something the installer should detect and deal with and try to do the right thing.
The problem can be tricky since some drives even report 512 sectors but actually use 4K sectors.
This can also be a problem with SSDs since they often use 4K sectors too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Format

 

[svr678]

He is referring to newer hard drives that have 4K sectors instead of the classic 512Byte sectors.
The reason it ends up being slow is the installer likely did not align the partitions a 4K boundary.

This is something the installer should detect and deal with and try to do the right thing.
The problem can be tricky since some drives even report 512 sectors but actually use 4K sectors.
This can also be a problem with SSDs since they often use 4K sectors too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Format

Yes, if not, it took about 20 min to copy a 30g raw file. Now more new machines use 4k HD, I don't like these HD, but have to use it.
if I use this partitions(no detection, just skip some space):
/dev/sda1 * 64 127 ...
/dev/sda2 128 xxx ...
is it right? thanks a lot!

 

[dietmar]

This is something the installer should detect and deal with and try to do the right thing.
The problem can be tricky since some drives even report 512 sectors but actually use 4K sectors.

Well, we align partitions at 1MB boundary, so that should not be the problem. I need a detailed bug report
for such things(what exactly is wrong?)

 

[dietmar]

Well, we align partitions at 1MB boundary, so that should not be the problem. I need a detailed bug report
for such things(what exactly is wrong?)

What is the output of

# parted /dev/sda print

 

[svr678]

What is the output of

# parted /dev/sda print

I use fdisk to setup partitions, they said parted would be better than fdisk:
/dev/sda1 * 64 127 ...
/dev/sda2 128 xxx ...

Here is the detail datas about the time:
Mon Mar 5 16:14:45 CST 2012
Mon Mar 5 16:30:01 CST 2012 32G/15m16s

Mon Mar 5 16:14:44 CST 2012
Mon Mar 5 16:23:50 CST 2012 32G/7m6s (changed the parttions)

if need more information please let me know. Thanks a lot!

 

[svr678]

get it and now have the results:
parted /dev/sda print
Model: ATA ST31000528AS (scsi)
Disk /dev/sda: 1000GB
Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
Partition Table: msdos

Number Start End Size Type File system Flags
1 32.8kB 537MB 537MB primary ext3 boot
2 537MB 1000GB 1000GB primary lvm

 

[svr678]

parted /dev/sda print
Model: ATA Hitachi HDS72101 (scsi)
Disk /dev/sda: 1000GB
Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
Partition Table: msdos

Number Start End Size Type File system Flags
1 518MB 1045MB 526MB primary ext4 boot
2 1045MB 1000GB 999GB primary lvm

 

[dietmar]

Number Start End Size Type File system Flags
1 518MB 1045MB 526MB primary ext4 boot
2 1045MB 1000GB 999GB primary lvm

So everything is aligned at MB boundary. I can't see any error here.

But I suggest to use ext3 instead of ext4.

 

[svr678]

So everything is aligned at MB boundary. I can't see any error here.

But I suggest to use ext3 instead of ext4.

ok, will change to ext3. Forget to say:
this one is "aligned", speed is 32G/7m6s
#8 is not "aligned", speed is 32G/15m16s

 

[dietmar]

#8 is not "aligned", speed is 32G/15m16s

Sorry, what exactly is not aligned?

 

[holgihero]

Here is some reading to the problem:

http://www.seagate.com/docs/pdf/de.../tp613_transition_to_4k_sectors.pdf(page 7, page 10) - there should be english literature be available also

check with > fdisk -l -u

a fresh install of proxmox 1.9 on a 250GB disk looks like:

Disk /dev/sda: 250.0 GB, 250059350016 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 30401 cylinders, total 488397168 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x00000000

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 * 64 1048639 524288 83 Linux
Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary.
/dev/sda2 1048640 488392063 243671712 8e Linux LVM

it is said that start blocks should divide through 8 without leftover and end block+1 should also divide through 8.
this happens here perfectly.
fdisk or the equivalent program invoked by the debian installer should take care of the problem.

regards, holger

 

[svr678]

I reinstalled it with default iso , speed is:
Tue Mar 6 16:01:16 CST 2012
Tue Mar 6 16:10:35 CST 2012
32g/9min19s, it's slower than debian, why?

 

[SysFailure0x5a]

I reinstalled it with default iso , speed is:
Tue Mar 6 16:01:16 CST 2012
Tue Mar 6 16:10:35 CST 2012
32g/9min19s, it's slower than debian, why?

Has this been fixed? If not, when will we get an ETA? Im about to purchase a server and drop in single platter 1TB drives with 4k sectors. I need PROXMOX to support this...