| General > General Technical Chat |
| what's behind the infamous Seagate BSY bug? |
| << < (5/6) > >> |
| DiTBho:
--- Quote from: tooki on May 02, 2022, 11:52:44 am ---LOL what? :-DD Until a few years ago, CMR is all that existed! Basically, all else held equal, SMR is suitable only for low-writing situations, CMR can be used universally. --- End quote --- Eh, you are right, tons of balls of confusion in my mind. These two are CMR, and are advertised ad "for NAS" * Seagate IronWolf is a 4TB CMR NAS HDD * WD Red Plus WD60EFRX-CMR is a 6TB CMR NAS HDDI got confused by the fact that CMR should have large disk-cache, say more than 64MByte. |
| Buriedcode:
--- Quote from: DiTBho on April 30, 2022, 11:52:16 am ---But I am reading bad bad things about the hard-drives I bought: * qty=6, st3500418sas, fw cc44, 7200.12, 500GB, used in project myNAS, RAID * qty=4, st1000dm010, fw cc43, barracuda, 1TB, used in project SCSI-to-sATA RAID-box * qty=2, st1000dm010, fw cc43, barracuda, 1TB, used in a UNIX server, RAID-mirroring I am not sure about the st1000dm010-barracuda, but it seems (because reported by a lot of people) that the 7200.12 can be stuck in the BSY state, a kind of abnormal working state of the disk that can be determined by the fact that one day the disk won't be recognized by the sATA controller. --- End quote --- You're using DM010. The affected drives were mostly DM001. That bug was fixed a long time ago. |
| DiTBho:
@Buriedcode thanks for your clarification :-+ |
| tooki:
--- Quote from: DiTBho on May 02, 2022, 06:16:01 pm ---Eh, you are right, tons of balls of confusion in my mind. These two are CMR, and are advertised ad "for NAS" * Seagate IronWolf is a 4TB CMR NAS HDD * WD Red Plus WD60EFRX-CMR is a 6TB CMR NAS HDDI got confused by the fact that CMR should have large disk-cache, say more than 64MByte. --- End quote --- A large cache benefits any drive, but it’s SMR drives where a large cache is critical because they must write entire large sections at once, and can’t do small, random writes. |
| newbrain:
--- Quote from: DiTBho, edits by newbrain on May 01, 2022, 12:20:43 pm ---I know that if the drive has a lower cache, like 64MB, it is most likely an SMR drive, and to be honest, there are not that many drives that are being manufactured as SMR. At least, I can only count a few. * SMR Pros Of An SMR Hard Drive Cheaper good choice if they are used mostly for just data storage good for archiving tasks provide more storage capacity more energy-efficient Cons Of An SMR Hard Drive not particularly well suited if the drive is meant to be constantly and permanently performing writing operations as that can result in a cache overflow Slow Transfer * CMR Pros Of An CMR Hard Drive good choice when data is intended to be stored at high transfer rates good choice when extremely large amounts of data is intended to be stored activities ranging from music streaming, audio, video, image processing Cons Of An CMR Hard Drive not made for NAS servers --- End quote --- Not to mince words, DiTBho, you got many points exactly backwards! In RED what I find objectionable. In order of appearance: * Drives with larger caches are often SMR - this because writing performance is very bad, large caches mitigate that somewhat * a CMR driv will have less capacity of SMR drive with the same physical structure * CMR drives are suitable for NAS, not SMR ones. Simplifying a bit: given the abysmal large writes performance of SMR, in case a NAS needs to resilver this will take an inordinate amount of time and make total failure much more probable. CMR drives have no penalty for writes wrt reads, so they are fine in this situation. SMR is a horrible gimmick, justified by greed (news at 11) - at least now most vendors are a bit more forthcoming with the information. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |