I recently wrote a blog about a local petabyte system. They use the WD red nas drives. http://kateleyco.com/?p=815 linda On 12/1/14, 9:07 PM, Jeremy MountainJohnson wrote: > Thanks, I was leaning toward giving the Red NAS drives a shot, but > went with two WD Blue drives, they were on sale really cheap. I > noticed some manufacturers don't even make 1 TB anymore, which is > actually what I'd prefer to stick with. RAID drives with 3 - 4 TB give > me the impression there is a little more room for failure on a RAID, > that, and it's more than I need. > > I've used green drives when handed them to me at a previous job for a > NAS, they actually did okay for about a year of large (images) being > archived on them, then one of four started relocating sectors like > crazy. I wouldn't rule the greens out with spares on hand for a home NAS. > > I've seen the studies about Seagate. I must of lucked out before they > went south, the first two I have still have their 5 year warranty and > no issues popping up in SMART yet (I think they are about 4 years old > now). > > Backing up the old raid to an external. With the amount of backups I > have, if I do decide to try zfs before the sticking with a Linux > software raid I'll post the experience here. > > Thanks again for all the great suggestions, > > -- > Jeremy MountainJohnson > Jeremy.MountainJohnson at gmail.com <mailto:Jeremy.MountainJohnson at gmail.com> > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:55 PM, <tclug at freakzilla.com > <mailto:tclug at freakzilla.com>> wrote: > > I've been using WD Red drives in my arrays for a few years now. > Had one (out of like 16) go bad after a year or so, WD replaced it > with no hassle at all. > > I would recommend buying at least 1 extra drive per array, so you > have a hot-spare. > > > On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Dan Armbrust wrote: > > On 11/29/2014 09:06 AM, Jeremy MountainJohnson wrote: > > Based on a lot of recent tests, I'll probably go with > Western Digital > drives for the cost savings and longevity, unless anyone > has other > suggestions? > > > Based on the pile of dead drives laying on my desk right now > (and the links below), avoid Seagate like the plague. Unless > you really like swapping disks all the time. > I tried out a WD "Green" drive for an application where > performance didn't matter as well (offline storage in a fire > safe, with monthly updates), because > it was cheap - and it was junk too. It literally worked 3 > times, before failed entirely. > > Higher end WD is probably better - but lately, I've been > spending the extra $ for Hitachi / HGST drives for systems > where I don't want to deal with drive failures: > > https://www.backblaze.com/blog/what-hard-drive-should-i-buy/ > https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-update-september-2014/ > > WD now owns the Hitachi drive line, but they don't seem to > have ruined it yet. > > As far as disk size... 2 or 3 TB isn't that much higher than 1 > TB these days.... especially if you go with the cheapest > drives, and just deal with the inevitable failures. > > Depending on how the numbers shake out, however, you might > come out ahead just running 3 6TB drives in a mirror config, > rather than 5 smaller drives in a different RAID config to get > your 2 drive fail-safety. Another nice aspect of a simple > mirror setup, is you can pull a drive and read it, without > needing the RAID config. > > Dan > _______________________________________________ > TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > tclug-list at mn-linux.org <mailto:tclug-list at mn-linux.org> > http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list > > _______________________________________________ > TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > tclug-list at mn-linux.org <mailto:tclug-list at mn-linux.org> > http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list > > > > > _______________________________________________ > TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > tclug-list at mn-linux.org > http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20141202/e1903781/attachment-0001.html>