Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, morphine, Steel
Krogoth wrote:Modern HDDs are pretty quiet for the most part. They have been that way ever since they moved to fluid bearings. You get better luck with using noise damping kits/mounts if you feel that modern HDDs are too loud for your tastes.
Duct Tape Dude wrote:2.5" drives.
just brew it! wrote:I actually find high capacity 2.5" and 3.5" drives to be roughly on par with one another pricewise. You can find 5TB 2.5" for $130 ($26/TB) and 8TB 3.5" for $160 ($20/TB). It's not orders of magnitude off and you get higher density and lower power consumption. On average it takes about 5 2.5" drives to equal one 3.5" drive in terms of power consumption. They run cooler, less likely to require fans, etc.Duct Tape Dude wrote:2.5" drives.
Cost/GB is higher with that approach.
Chrispy_ wrote:If your workload is random enough to be affected by SMR then that's definitely fair, but remember that many high capacity 3.5" drives do the same exact thing. For sequential writes I still get a sustained 120MB/s out of a shucked 4TB Seagate and it runs dead quiet compared the 5TB 3.5" sitting nearby.The other problem with 2.5" drives is that the capacity is too low. 2TB for standard 9.5mm drives, 4TB in a 15mm drive before they cheat with SMR and destroy the performance.
With 15mm ones you can't use those multi-bays but that doesn't matter because at 4TB I'm not really getting a capacity upgrade before I run out of SATA ports.
I was forced to replace the previous array of 2TB Greens (now called Blues) because of the awful head-parking issue that I didn't realise until after the damage was done.
Veerappan wrote:I was forced to replace the previous array of 2TB Greens (now called Blues) because of the awful head-parking issue that I didn't realise until after the damage was done.
Silly question, but why don't you replace the Reds with newer Blues, and just disable (or extend the time of) the head parking? I did that on my 2TB greens immediately after buying them, and they've been doing wonderfully in my 3-drive FreeNAS box for a few years now.
I'm not sure if this still works on the current model drives, but this is the procedure that I used a few years ago to disable/lengthen the head parking time on my drives:
https://wdullaer.com/blog/2015/04/05/hack-your-wd-greens/
Waco wrote:Backblazes' numbers are likely much higher than anything you'll see at home. They actually work the drives fairly hard compared to most NAS duties in a typical installation. UBER is pretty similar across all drives regardless of the spec (and well above it, generally).
Waco wrote:I have a 6 TB Seagate Enterprise Capacity drive that's fairly quiet as well as a 10 TB Seagate Skyhawk that's even more quiet. Almost all drives are quiet these days compared to the clunkers of even a decade ago.
Chrispy_ wrote:Waco wrote:Backblazes' numbers are likely much higher than anything you'll see at home. They actually work the drives fairly hard compared to most NAS duties in a typical installation. UBER is pretty similar across all drives regardless of the spec (and well above it, generally).
Ta. The old 2007 Google consumer disk study of a 100,000-strong selection of drives from different parts of their fleet concluded that there was no correlation between failure rates and how hard the disks were worked. Indentical sample sets from the most punished scenarios were failing at exactly the same rate as mostly-idle disks doing almost nothing. Likewise, on the condition that the temperature was within manufacturer tolerances, whether a drive was hot or cool also had no effect on failure over time.
Waco wrote:UBER for all current drives is quoted as either 1 in 1015 or 1 in 1014, why would that be if the error rate on all drives was "pretty similar" to that of those with a spec'd error rate an order of magnitude lower?UBER is pretty similar across all drives regardless of the spec (and well above it, generally).
Topinio wrote:Waco wrote:UBER for all current drives is quoted as either 1 in 1015 or 1 in 1014, why would that be if the error rate on all drives was "pretty similar" to that of those with a spec'd error rate an order of magnitude lower?UBER is pretty similar across all drives regardless of the spec (and well above it, generally).
Chrispy_ wrote:The old 2007 Google consumer disk study of a 100,000-strong selection of drives from different parts of their fleet concluded that there was no correlation between failure rates and how hard the disks were worked. Indentical sample sets from the most punished scenarios were failing at exactly the same rate as mostly-idle disks doing almost nothing..
morphine wrote:Oh, in case it's not clear by now: WD Reds are by far the quietest "fast" drives I've ever laid ears on.