General > General Technical Chat
modern storage is crazy
<< < (14/14)
DiTBho:

--- Quote from: tooki on April 30, 2022, 12:52:59 pm ---Well, you can buy some high-reliability enterprise disks

--- End quote ---

SAS instead of sATA?
or FC-disks?
can you suggest something?  :D
mariush:
WD Gold Enterprise drives are specc'ed as this :  datasheet

Load/unload cycles 600,000 
Non-recoverable read errors per bits read <1 in 1015
MTBF (hours) 2,500,000 
AFR (%) 0.35 
Limited warranty (years)  5

Workload  (in fineprint)  219 TB per year

WD Red Plus : datasheet

Reliability/Data Integrity
Load/unload cycles4 600,000
Non-recoverable errors per bits read <1 in 1014
MTBF (hours)5 1,000,000 
Workload Rate (TB/year)  180
Limited warranty (years)  3

AFR not specified ..

So you can see  2.5 M  vs 1M MTBF , 219 TB/year vs 180 TB/year  etc etc ...  In theory the enteprise drive is better. 

In practice, you could buy 10 enterprise drives and 10 nas drives and have more enterprise drives fail on you within a year. 

Backblaze publishes stats for their inventory of drives, and their AFR is a bit higher, at around 0.5-0.7, with Seagate being much worse, close to 1-2% : https://www.backblaze.com/blog/backblaze-drive-stats-for-2021/

But take their results with a big grain of salt, because they don't use the hard drives as a typical person would use them - they have 4U cases where they shove 40+ drives in a case, so they're probably running much warmer than normal, and there's significantly more vibrations compared to what a drive would experience in a normal case, or in a max 8 drive NAS system.

They had 202759 drives in 2021, and 1820 died ... 1.01 AFR average, but Seagate drives peaked at 4.8% AFR ( 77 out of 1611 14 TB drives died)
You'll find HGST drives ( now WD Gold and other higher end models) among the lowest failure drives.



james_s:

--- Quote from: Ranayna on April 30, 2022, 07:41:50 am ---5 1/4" drives would be slooooooow, compared to 3.5" disks, and spinning rust is already slow compared to SSDs. The seek times would be significantly longer, and also the large platters cannot be driven to the high RPMs of modern disks without starting to wobble.
There is a reason why, back in the day, the highest performance harddisks generally were 2.5". Even many 3.5" harddisks used smaller platters.

--- End quote ---

In a lot of cases that doesn't matter. I use SMR drives for backing up my media server, they're slow, but I don't care, I just kick off the backup and a few days later it's finished. If I could get a single 16+TB 5.25" drive that cost less than a pair of 8TB 3.5" drives I would seriously consider it. Doubt this will happen though.
Navigation
Message Index
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod