fullvietFX
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2004
- Messages
- 2,015
I'll be buying on of these for my movies I bought in Mehico.
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.
This.. RAID-Z3, any three drives in the array. That's the highest that it goes as far as i'm aware.
Just another spin on the Western Digital Color Schema:
Blue=MidGrade useful for desktops
Green=Slow, Energy Saver
Red=NAS grade
You'd think the HDD unit would need to go lower to stay relevant
This.. RAID-Z3, any three drives in the array. That's the highest that it goes as far as i'm aware.
At 10TB it really needs to be reliable. That's a lot of info to lose.
10TB is a lot of data to lose should the drive fail.
How much data would you like to lose today.
Anybody that runs a 10TB drive by itself is asking to lose tons of information.
Now you can lose 10 TB in a catastrophic hard drive failure instead of some lesser amount!
RAID6 is no longer viable (by the math) either with many drives of this class. Currently file management systems for the consumer are very much behind the times. For big industry...they have fairly good systems but we don't have access to them. Even then, the chance of a URE is pretty much guaranteed with this size drive if reading the "whole thing". We really need file systems that have strong enough hash/encoding systems (e.g. enhanced parity) such that a failed read on a block is repairable by looking at the data around it and not just dumping the whole array.
They're not as bad as they're made out to be. I've got 48 of the "bad" 2TB drives up and running right now, and one sitting around as a spare. Power-on time is a couple of years, IIRC. We had several hundred of them at work. I think I replaced one or two in the year I was working with them.Do Seagate drives really have failure rates that bad? I haven't had to buy a hard drive in quite a long time, but I remember them being extremely reliable once.
Yes.Do Seagate drives really have failure rates that bad? I haven't had to buy a hard drive in quite a long time, but I remember them being extremely reliable once.
I make backups(2 actually, less then 2 tb), but if it dies in a raid, it has to rebuild. That takes time?Ever heard of backups? Or are you the one that cries because data loss will never happen to me?
The Barracuda Pro and the IronWolf are available now at the suggested prices of $534.99 (£406, AU$714 converted) and 469.99 (£357, AU$627), respectively.
Do Seagate drives really have failure rates that bad? I haven't had to buy a hard drive in quite a long time, but I remember them being extremely reliable once.
For all of you referencing the Backblaze stats, remember this: Backblaze is taking consumer hard drives designed to be used in a desktop environment, and putting them into a datacenter. Backblaze usage is not even close to normal, intended usage for these drives. For your usage, which is probably quite different than how Backblaze is using them, the drives that Backblaze reports high failure rates may very well be extremely reliable.
The problem with blanking your backups is you then have no backups -- well maybe your double backup scheme helps with that.Don't really agree with you. It depends on the size of the array, the error rate of the drive, and if your controller support read scans to mark out bad blocks.
If you plan to put 12 of them in a raid 6, then you might be pushing your luck, but that's what backups are for.
With Raid 5, you would almost be guarantied to fail the rebuild.
However, even large Raid 5's have their place. I run Disk2Disk2Tape backups at the office.
Initially we used individual drives or Raid 0, since the backup date is duplicated to tape.
However, as the amount of data/drives grew, the possibility of errors also grew.
I now use large Raid 5's (one is 36TB) for the backup data.
If the Raid fails, it's faster to just replace the failed drive, blank the array and start the backups again.
My machine is on 24/7 with no drive power saving.For all of you referencing the Backblaze stats, remember this: Backblaze is taking consumer hard drives designed to be used in a desktop environment, and putting them into a datacenter. Backblaze usage is not even close to normal, intended usage for these drives. For your usage, which is probably quite different than how Backblaze is using them, the drives that Backblaze reports high failure rates may very well be extremely reliable.
FTFY10TB is a lot of porn to lose should the drive fail.
Don't knock it too much, you'll go blind!Currently have about 25TB in my house... never had a single Seagate go bad on me yet *knock on wood*
I dunno what all the fuss is about?
I can fill up 10tb really fast, with uncompressed raw video footage.
Would you trust a company that just laid off 8000 people?
How long would it take to watch 10TB of porn?mnewxcv said: 10TB is a lot of porn to lose should the drive fail.
hey heY HEY!!! BLACK drives matter!Just another spin on the Western Digital Color Schema:
Blue=MidGrade useful for desktops Green=Slow, Energy Saver Red=NAS grade
Seems every manufacturer has it's bad streak. Wasn't IBM's whole disk division sold to HGST? Which is now the best choice?They were the Deathstars of another generation.
Still many years till a 5TB SSD has a sub $200 price tag.
Do Seagate drives really have failure rates that bad? I haven't had to buy a hard drive in quite a long time, but I remember them being extremely reliable once.