Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, morphine, Steel
just brew it! wrote:If noise/heat are a concern at all, go with the WD Reds; otherwise I'd vote for the HGST Deskstars. Since you're planning to do JBOD instead of RAID-1 (or any other higher-level RAID) I would avoid the REs since they actually dial back the aggressiveness of the drive's internal error recovery algorithm.
Also, given that you're not doing any kind of redundant RAID, you might as well do RAID-0 instead of JBOD. Failure of a single drive will result in loss of all contents in either case, so you might as well have the extra sequential I/O performance of RAID-0.
ptsant wrote:Are you sure that JBOD is as fragile as RAID0? I always did RAID1 so I don't have any experience with that but I imagined that JBOD would still allow one to access file on the non-corrupt disk.
just brew it! wrote:Edit: Also, I may have misspoken on the RE issue. IIRC the Reds have the same tweaks to the error recovery algorithms, so between the Red and RE it just comes down to heat/noise. WD Greens have "traditional" (more aggressive) error recovery and lower power usage, but seem to be more failure prone than the Reds so I can't in good conscience recommend them over the Reds for 24x7 application.
Deanjo wrote:IIRC the RE's also have more vibration detection and correction with is also found in the Red Pro's.
LASR wrote:As someone who recently bought 8x4TB WD Greens, stay away from WD Green.
ptsant wrote:After some more thought, maybe the Red 6 TB is a good choice. Space should be enough (I estimate 4-5TB for my current project). The advantage is less power/noise and lower probability of failure with respect to RAID0/JBOD.
Chrispy_ wrote:LASR wrote:As someone who recently bought 8x4TB WD Greens, stay away from WD Green.
God yes. Greens can't be RAIDed at all they just drop out constantly.
Waco wrote:Chrispy_ wrote:LASR wrote:As someone who recently bought 8x4TB WD Greens, stay away from WD Green.
God yes. Greens can't be RAIDed at all they just drop out constantly.
Any desktop drive without TLER will do that. WD Greens are no worse than any others (minus the ones that park the heads incredibly aggressively).
just brew it! wrote:Deanjo wrote:IIRC the RE's also have more vibration detection and correction with is also found in the Red Pro's.
Guess I missed the memo on the release of the Red Pros. So the Red Pro is basically a lower RPM RE?
JustAnEngineer wrote:Other People's Money: "The best... buggy whip you ever saw!"
Demolition Man: {In the future}, "Now all restaurants are Taco Bell."
Hard-drive engineering can't push the performance envelope because they're simply not in the same class as solid state storage. Thus, the emphasis shifts from product development to market segmentation to maximize profits.
just brew it! wrote:I stand by my Taco Bell analogy!
just brew it! wrote:OK. so it's... another name for the RE? Or a Red with a higher spindle speed and longer warranty? I stand by my Taco Bell analogy!
just brew it! wrote:In "pure" JBOD you can still get files split across the 2 physical drives meaning recovering them would be difficult. However, if you do JBOD using something like NTFS mounting the entire volume to a subfolder, then both of your drives are still maintained separately (with the same capacity limitation of both drives). Does Linux have something similar?ptsant wrote:Are you sure that JBOD is as fragile as RAID0? I always did RAID1 so I don't have any experience with that but I imagined that JBOD would still allow one to access file on the non-corrupt disk.
No... you'll have a slightly better chance (as in, higher than zero) of being able to recover *some* of the files in the case of a JBOD failure, but it'll likely take a non-trivial amount of effort. Best to plan on all of the data being toasted either way if one of the drives fails.
If you want the data on the other drive to remain intact when one fails, you really want to configure them as two separate volumes.
just brew it! wrote:Waco wrote:Chrispy_ wrote:God yes. Greens can't be RAIDed at all they just drop out constantly.
Any desktop drive without TLER will do that. WD Greens are no worse than any others (minus the ones that park the heads incredibly aggressively).
...and the Greens were the ones that started the whole "aggressive head parking" thing.
Flying Fox wrote:In "pure" JBOD you can still get files split across the 2 physical drives meaning recovering them would be difficult. However, if you do JBOD using something like NTFS mounting the entire volume to a subfolder, then both of your drives are still maintained separately (with the same capacity limitation of both drives).
Flying Fox wrote:Does Linux have something similar?
just brew it! wrote:ptsant wrote:After some more thought, maybe the Red 6 TB is a good choice. Space should be enough (I estimate 4-5TB for my current project). The advantage is less power/noise and lower probability of failure with respect to RAID0/JBOD.
Maybe, maybe not. Top-end capacity typically means lots of platters and heads, which means more wear and tear on the spindle motor, bearings, and head actuator. Seek noise will typically be a little higher as well since the head actuator needs to move more mass around.
just brew it! wrote:...and the Greens were the ones that started the whole "aggressive head parking" thing.
Chrispy_ wrote:just brew it! wrote:...and the Greens were the ones that started the whole "aggressive head parking" thing.
QFT; This is what I was getting at.