Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If you are referring to the 8TB archive drive then no, its not designed for 'active' data, its not designed to work in RAID, its meant for data that is seldom accessed hence the 'archive' part of its name.
http://www.storagereview.com/seagate_archive_hdd_review_8tb
Would you consider a drive full to capacity with 15-40GB mkv files as 'active' data? The data would be wrote once and read only when I want to watch a movie. Like an archive, if you will.
No. If you want someplace to SERVE media from, DO NOT use these drives. It's not that you CANNOT implement them this way. It's just that it isn't what they're built/spec'ed for.
These drives are built as backup devices. You write data to them and leave them alone except in cases where you need to recover something off the disk. You don't want to be constantly streaming data off them.
Absolute horseshit
If you wanna use drives outside of their duty spec, fine. Don't come bitching to me (or the drive vendor) when they fail.
Seagate 8TB Archive 3.5 inch SATA 3 Enterprise 24x7 Class Hard Drive
No. If you want someplace to SERVE media from, DO NOT use these drives. It's not that you CANNOT implement them this way. It's just that it isn't what they're built/spec'ed for.
These drives are built as backup devices. You write data to them and leave them alone except in cases where you need to recover something off the disk. You don't want to be constantly streaming data off them.
Did you even look at the datasheet?
http://www.seagate.com/www-content/...dd/en-us/docs/archive-hdd-dS1834-3-1411us.pdf
"Engineered for 24×7 workloads of 180TB per year"
How does a media server fall outside this use case?
Even if you were streaming 40Mbit BluRay every second of every day for an entire year, you would only be reading 157.7TB which is below the spec.
These are shingled storage. Essentially, they're write once. If you need to re-write anything on the drive, you've got to re-record the whole drive. What commercial file systems support such drives?
Yes, you're correct. Have you heard anything about the band sizes the production drives are using?Is this true? From what I've read it will re-write the band, not the platter or whole drive. Unless the 8TB drive is different...
Yes, you're correct. Have you heard anything about the band sizes the production drives are using?
These are shingled storage. Essentially, they're write once. If you need to re-write anything on the drive, you've got to re-record the whole drive. What commercial file systems support such drives?
Even if you were streaming 40Mbit BluRay every second of every day for an entire year, you would only be reading 157.7TB which is below the spec.
In past 3 weeks i have done a rebuild on a 4X4TB array, 2 on a 8X4TB (went to a Lan and some cables got a bit loose and caused issues) and a Verified+fix on a 6X8TB array and I have yet to have a non recoverable error. In all of the articles people link they mention a 50%+ chance of failure on a 12TB array ( I have done 108Tb of rebuilding) . I should play lotto I guess.
If that was true any write no matter how small would take like 4 days, I have done several writes to my drives (a build writes the whole drive, plus filling it up ect) and that was never the case.
No. If you want someplace to SERVE media from, DO NOT use these drives. It's not that you CANNOT implement them this way. It's just that it isn't what they're built/spec'ed for.
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. Only the individual band needs to be re-written, and it's handled all on the drive's firmware.These are shingled storage. Essentially, they're write once. If you need to re-write anything on the drive, you've got to re-record the whole drive. What commercial file systems support such drives?
Indeed, only the band is rewritten. (See posts #22 and #23 above.)Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. Only the individual band needs to be re-written, and it's handled all on the drive's firmware.
Wow, was a load of BS. SMR is perfectly fine for serving data constantly. The "shingled" aspect only comes into play when writing.
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. Only the individual band needs to be re-written, and it's handled all on the drive's firmware.
If anything, the inherent nature of home media NAS's is write-infrequently/read-frequently, which lends itself extremely well to shingled drives. RAID is probably not a good idea but software based pooling would be just fine.
@eess
I think you may have a point. In fact you could build a topology where the RAID 4 parity drive is in fact a RAID 1 pair; I think these drives would be OK in RAID 1. Heh, RAID 4 might make a comeback. EDIT: having read the SR article, maybe RAID 1 isn't such a good idea. RAID 4 sounds good, assuming you can rebuild the parity drive if it fails (I assume so, but I know little of RAID 4). Also, the Hitachi He8 is an 8TB PMR unit.
What raid controllers are people using with these?
Not sure, this PDF for the 5Tb drive states 36MiB at the outer cylinder.
I guess time will tell. What raid controllers are people using with these? I am still leery of investing in 12 of these for my Synology NAS, but I wonder if my Areca ARC-1261 would support these?
I'm not sure if Raid4 would help, sure if the Non SMR drive failed and was replaced with a non SMR drive the writes to it would be fast however if a SMR drive failed you would need to write to it. (its not like SMR drives never fail but PMR ones do)
SMR drives are designed to work well in short burst write activity. Sustained write performance in this case is a weakness that we see throughout the rest of our tests.