mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Hardware

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2022-01-08, 18:37   #1
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
"๐’‰บ๐’ŒŒ๐’‡ท๐’†ท๐’€ญ"
May 2003
Down not across

3·17·223 Posts
Default 4TB disk recommendation.

One of the three disks in the ZFS array is going bad. The other two are keeping things working but I should replace them.

Can anyone recommend good models of 4TB SATA disks at a reasonable price? The market has changed since I last purchased any disks.


Currently looking at WD Red NAS drives.

The three old ones will be re-purposed, with the damaged sectors carefully mapped out and the remaining ones put to use in a monitored and non-essential filesystem.
xilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-01-08, 19:18   #2
sdbardwick
 
sdbardwick's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
North San Diego County

733 Posts
Default

Need to be careful with WD drives these days (actually all brands, but WD was/is worst offender) as you can end up with SMR (shingled magnetic recording) drives instead of conventional magnetic recording drives. SMR can have awful write performance, especially during resilver operations.
I used to prefer IBM Ultrastar drives which then morphed into HGST Ultrastar, and finally got absorbed into WD. Since the integration, I've been using Toshiba N300 drives for 4TB and 8TB, as they have an uncorrectable read error rate of 1 in 10^15, while most competitors (and Toshiba's larger sizes) have 1 in 10^14 rates. Amusingly, the tech sheet lists it as 1 in 1015 and 1 in 1014 bits. Also rated for 24/7 operation and equipped with rotational vibration sensors and compensating algorithms.

Last fiddled with by sdbardwick on 2022-01-08 at 19:19
sdbardwick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-01-08, 23:16   #3
retina
Undefined
 
retina's Avatar
 
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair

5×1,301 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xilman View Post
The three old ones will be re-purposed, with the damaged sectors carefully mapped out and the remaining ones put to use in a monitored and non-essential filesystem.
Discard that old thing. They only get worse over time. The effort to constantly babysit them, worrying about new problem sectors, isn't worth it IMO.

As for buying new ones: Just buy whatever is available. All the brands are the same. They all have good and bad models, but you won't know which is which until after the fact, so it is just a lottery anyway.
retina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-01-09, 00:24   #4
Chuck
 
Chuck's Avatar
 
May 2011
Orange Park, FL

2·3·151 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xilman View Post
One of the three disks in the ZFS array is going bad. The other two are keeping things working but I should replace them.

Can anyone recommend good models of 4TB SATA disks at a reasonable price? The market has changed since I last purchased any disks.

Currently looking at WD Red NAS drives.

The three old ones will be re-purposed, with the damaged sectors carefully mapped out and the remaining ones put to use in a monitored and non-essential filesystem.
My QNAP NAS has 6 WD Gold Enterprise 4 Tb disks. I had to replace one yesterday as a weekly SMART test showed 8 questionable sectors. I keep a spare on hand and I ordered another which was $172 on Amazon. The failing disk had been running 24X7 for three years.

Erased the old one (one pass zeroes, took 24 hours) and took it to Staples for recycling.
Chuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-01-09, 00:47   #5
chalsall
If I May
 
chalsall's Avatar
 
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados

22·5·17·31 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by retina View Post
Discard that old thing. They only get worse over time. The effort to constantly babysit them, worrying about new problem sectors, isn't worth it IMO.
Seconded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by retina View Post
As for buying new ones: Just buy whatever is available. All the brands are the same.
Respectfully disagree.

My personal sample set is relatively small. But there is one brand I will not touch (unless I have no other choice).

For larger sample-set considerations, I have always appreciated Backblaze publishing their empirical data.

And... Obviously... If you're doing local storage, mix in a blend of manufacturers and/or models into your RAID mix.

If you're doing cloud storage, it's a buyer's market. Just make sure you use at least two.
chalsall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-01-09, 08:30   #6
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
"๐’‰บ๐’ŒŒ๐’‡ท๐’†ท๐’€ญ"
May 2003
Down not across

1137310 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by retina View Post
Discard that old thing. They only get worse over time. The effort to constantly babysit them, worrying about new problem sectors, isn't worth it IMO.
I tendto use such things as read-mostly devices holding material easily recoverable.

An on-line mirror of a CD and DVD collection is the standard use case.
xilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-01-09, 10:09   #7
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
"๐’‰บ๐’ŒŒ๐’‡ท๐’†ท๐’€ญ"
May 2003
Down not across

3·17·223 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdbardwick View Post
Since the integration, I've been using Toshiba N300 drives for 4TB and 8TB, as they have an uncorrectable read error rate of 1 in 10^15, while most competitors (and Toshiba's larger sizes) have 1 in 10^14 rates.
Thanks. Been checking them out with mixed results. For instance a 1-star review at https://www.scan.co.uk/products/4tb-...pm-128mb-cache says
absolutely rubbish

Noisy and has now stopped working, this drive has hardly even had 6 months of use out of it and now nothing. I used to rate toshiba over the others but this is a waste of ยฃ100.

Another review gives it 5 stars, though mentions the noise, and the third only 2 stars.

Not currently in stock at Scan, a company with which I have had good experiences in the past.
xilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-01-10, 23:05   #8
Mark Rose
 
Mark Rose's Avatar
 
"/X\(โ€˜-โ€˜)/X\"
Jan 2013

2,953 Posts
Default

For ZFS, you absolutely want to avoid SMR. It will try resilvering to the drive, then fail once the drive fills up its CMR area and begins to rewrite to its SMR area.

WD Red Plus are CMR. Seagate Ironwolf are also CMR. I'd pick one of those.

HGST Deskstar NAS is another option.

Last fiddled with by Mark Rose on 2022-01-10 at 23:07
Mark Rose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-01-11, 13:15   #9
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
"๐’‰บ๐’ŒŒ๐’‡ท๐’†ท๐’€ญ"
May 2003
Down not across

3×17×223 Posts
Default

Just ordered a WD Red Plus from Scan. It was available for a couple of quid cheaper elsewhere but I have had very good experiences with Scan.

Thanks, all, for your advice.
xilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-01-17, 16:46   #10
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
"๐’‰บ๐’ŒŒ๐’‡ท๐’†ท๐’€ญ"
May 2003
Down not across

101100011011012 Posts
Default

Disk arrived, eventually. Courier's fault, not Scan.

Disk swap went easily but I had to RTFM to work out how to incorporate it into the raidz. Now resilvering smoothly and quickly.

The other two disks are both 2TB so, in some sense, I am wasting half the storage of the new disk. However, I expect those two to die before many years have passed and once both are replaced the full 4TB can be used(*). The price differential was tiny compared with the doubled capacity.

*Note to self: zpool set autoexpand=on backup

Last fiddled with by xilman on 2022-01-17 at 16:53 Reason: Add note
xilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GPU recommendation? c10ck3r GPU Computing 4 2019-08-20 19:26
Laptop recommendation wombatman Hardware 8 2015-11-15 16:57
:down: recommendation? bsquared YAFU 9 2012-04-11 19:34
System Recommendation drh Hardware 21 2011-05-21 01:39
CPU cooling system recommendation esqrkim Hardware 5 2010-03-27 16:30

All times are UTC. The time now is 04:03.


Thu Jun 30 04:03:03 UTC 2022 up 77 days, 2:04, 0 users, load averages: 1.87, 1.51, 1.40

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.

โ‰  ยฑ โˆ“ รท ร— ยท โˆ’ โˆš โ€ฐ โŠ— โŠ• โŠ– โŠ˜ โŠ™ โ‰ค โ‰ฅ โ‰ฆ โ‰ง โ‰จ โ‰ฉ โ‰บ โ‰ป โ‰ผ โ‰ฝ โŠ โŠ โŠ‘ โŠ’ ยฒ ยณ ยฐ
โˆ  โˆŸ ยฐ โ‰… ~ โ€– โŸ‚ โซ›
โ‰ก โ‰œ โ‰ˆ โˆ โˆž โ‰ช โ‰ซ โŒŠโŒ‹ โŒˆโŒ‰ โˆ˜ โˆ โˆ โˆ‘ โˆง โˆจ โˆฉ โˆช โจ€ โŠ• โŠ— ๐–• ๐–– ๐–— โŠฒ โŠณ
โˆ… โˆ– โˆ โ†ฆ โ†ฃ โˆฉ โˆช โŠ† โŠ‚ โŠ„ โŠŠ โŠ‡ โŠƒ โŠ… โŠ‹ โŠ– โˆˆ โˆ‰ โˆ‹ โˆŒ โ„• โ„ค โ„š โ„ โ„‚ โ„ต โ„ถ โ„ท โ„ธ ๐“Ÿ
ยฌ โˆจ โˆง โŠ• โ†’ โ† โ‡’ โ‡ โ‡” โˆ€ โˆƒ โˆ„ โˆด โˆต โŠค โŠฅ โŠข โŠจ โซค โŠฃ โ€ฆ โ‹ฏ โ‹ฎ โ‹ฐ โ‹ฑ
โˆซ โˆฌ โˆญ โˆฎ โˆฏ โˆฐ โˆ‡ โˆ† ฮด โˆ‚ โ„ฑ โ„’ โ„“
๐›ข๐›ผ ๐›ฃ๐›ฝ ๐›ค๐›พ ๐›ฅ๐›ฟ ๐›ฆ๐œ€๐œ– ๐›ง๐œ ๐›จ๐œ‚ ๐›ฉ๐œƒ๐œ— ๐›ช๐œ„ ๐›ซ๐œ… ๐›ฌ๐œ† ๐›ญ๐œ‡ ๐›ฎ๐œˆ ๐›ฏ๐œ‰ ๐›ฐ๐œŠ ๐›ฑ๐œ‹ ๐›ฒ๐œŒ ๐›ด๐œŽ๐œ ๐›ต๐œ ๐›ถ๐œ ๐›ท๐œ™๐œ‘ ๐›ธ๐œ’ ๐›น๐œ“ ๐›บ๐œ”