Hard drive failure rates

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by atwl77, Jan 23, 2014.

  1. atwl77

    atwl77 Just Started

  2. PsYkHoTiK

    PsYkHoTiK Admin nerd

    Go Hitachi/WD!!! :thumb:

    I have a 1TB Hitachi 7200rpm hdd in my PS4. A WD 500GB 7200rpm hdd in my PS3. A 1TB 7200rpm caviar black and 2 500GB velociraptors in my PC.
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2014
  3. Adrian Wong

    Adrian Wong Da Boss Staff Member

  4. Chai

    Chai Administrator Staff Member

    That's interesting. Those seeking for almost silent pcs usually suspend their hard disk, instead of hard mounting it. Seems like it does more than quieting them...

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
  5. atwl77

    atwl77 Just Started

    I'll probably stick to the Reds for my NAS. Incidentally its now at 90% capacity so upgrade time, to 4tb, is just around the corner.

    wondering if I should continue with RAID 1 or move to RAID 5...
  6. Adrian Wong

    Adrian Wong Da Boss Staff Member

    Even for their Red drives, they are recommending using no more than 5 of them in a single case.

    If you need to mount more than 5 HDDs in a single case, they recommend using their Re or Se drives, which have RAFF technology to help cancel vibration.
  7. Adrian Wong

    Adrian Wong Da Boss Staff Member

    Definitely stick with the WD Reds for NAS. Too many failures with Green or even Black drives in NAS systems.

    You have a 4-bay NAS? If you do, then I would go with RAID 5.
  8. atwl77

    atwl77 Just Started

    Nope, still using a 2-bay model with 2x 3TB on RAID1.

    Since Synology supports easy migration, was thinking I can either:

    I) keep using 3TB... but move to a 4-bay, add an additional 2x 4TB, and run RAID 0+1.


    II) complete move to 4x 4TB, setup as RAID5; keep current NAS for something less important (movies, etc)
  9. Adrian Wong

    Adrian Wong Da Boss Staff Member

    I would just upgrade to 4 x 4 TB and go RAID 5, if you can afford it.
  10. ZuePhok

    ZuePhok Just Started

    I would say any sata raid 5 setup is "itchy backside" :p A 4x4 sata raid 5 array is simply looking for trouble. unlike SAS drives, sata's raid5 rebuild time is really bad. Now imagine rebuildign a 4x4 raid 5 array on sata. the parity check (stresss ah!) alone is a good recipe for disaster.

    when a drive in a raid 5 array config goes bad, chances of the other array members failing/droppping out are equally high.

    either raid 1 / raid 10, or just plain old backup solutions.
  11. Adrian Wong

    Adrian Wong Da Boss Staff Member

    Seriously? I was looking at it from an efficiency POV. Never had the experience of rebuilding a RAID 5 array. How long does it take?
  12. ZuePhok

    ZuePhok Just Started

    For NAS appliances, would suggest to stick with RAID 1/10. I have not fully rebuilt a raid 5 array at home (work-induced "trauma" :pray: :pray: am trying not to be cute and just stick with plain old backup) and the nearest comparison that I can think of is ibm/emc nearline SATA storage. A 4x1TB RAID 5 array can take 14-20 hrs depending on the controller's workload (excluding the backup time taken prior to rebuilding. A real PITA because reading is slow in degraded mode)

    if you want RAID 5 you have to make sure you build the entire "chain" with SAS devices. this means SAS drives, a compatible/certified SAS backplate and a good SAS controller with plenty of cache.. *ahem* it sounds almost like a branded DAS/SAN. that's my point. the biggest risk of hardware-based RAID 5 is its rebuilding process. one more drop out and your array is gone. this is why you want to go full SAS. You get significantly faster rebuilding (full duplex, really fast! 3x2TB array in less than 7hrs) + multipath + higher reliability. even nearline SATA tends to throw a tantrum once in a while. Desktop SATA? :naughty:

    But wait, why do we end up spending more for a supposedly cost efficient storage solution? Given the fragility of raid 5, I wouldn't consider RAID 5 a cost-efficient file storage. I would say it offers a better cost/read IOPS ratio vs raid 10 (so its more presentable to bean counter :p). It's a cheaper alternative for application that requires more spindle/read intensive db ops/old exchange 2003 (exchange IO access has been rearchitected in version 2007 + 64 bits = memory matters more these days).

    For home use, even a 4TB raid 1 on desktop sata is overextended imo as the weekly/monthly consistency checks are going to take a while to complete.
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2014
    1 person likes this.
  13. Adrian Wong

    Adrian Wong Da Boss Staff Member

    That's why I'm sticking to JBOD. LOL...

    PS. Good write up. This could form a basis for a short article on what a home user should use in their 2 or 4-bay NAS.
  14. Chai

    Chai Administrator Staff Member

    But SAS is really expensive... Not sure if anyone would use that at home.
  15. Adrian Wong

    Adrian Wong Da Boss Staff Member

    I don't think it would be practical to use SAS at home.
  16. atwl77

    atwl77 Just Started

    Hmm... the other way I can manage my storage woes is to not change anything; add another USB 2TB drive and attach it to the NAS, then move all the movies onto it.

    Strictly for data backup purposes, 3TB is still more than enough as far as the NAS is concerned.
  17. Chai

    Chai Administrator Staff Member

    How do you guys configure the NAS for backup?
  18. ZuePhok

    ZuePhok Just Started

    Robocopy. it's versatile, especially over the network. if you have the time you can even script it to act like a basic "fusion drive" controller, to move content in and out of your SSD. It's built in and I simply schedule it (with WOL to wake the backup machine) as a task and forget.

    I prefer a tower that can fit plenty of cheap eco drives. I then rely on robocopy to manage the backup. Robocopy doesn't support delta sync but its multi-threaded copying is great. Knowing the reliability of eco drives, I get robocopy to make two copies. This way I got to avoid RAID because I really wanted to skip the consistency check.

    Not a fan of NAS because majority of them run linux, so you have to rely on samba to talk to SMB. I have no beef against these two. It's just that you are missing out SMB2 and 3 features (please forgive if samba has caught up).

    Also, i can't seem to get samba + SMB to transfer at full sequential speed (sustainable, not burst).
  19. atwl77

    atwl77 Just Started

    I've been using MS SyncToy, which is technically not considered a backup (no history/recovery), but that's because I treat my NAS as a central repository that acts as a master copy. All my machines sync to the NAS, while those with limited capacity selectively sync only certain content.

    For work we use SVN for code, and robocopy+drop box for larger assets.
  20. Falcone

    Falcone Official Mascot Creator

    Seems now I'm having problems with my SSD i'm using 128GB PlextorM5S, lately I'm getting blue screen on my windows, and rebooted itself and at bios level the drive went missing, after a few reboots it will manage to detect it and boot back to windows. I have tried changing cables and port seems doesn't help so I now suspect the SSD has issue, it seems to help if i unplug and replug the drive. The problem is that it's intermittent and I'm going to have a hard time explaining it to RMA the SSD.

    Anyone has the same issue?

Share This Page