• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


garycase last won the day on March 8

garycase had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

32 Good

About garycase

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 12/22/47


  • Gender
  1. r.e. "... I would have been screwed." ==> not at all. You can simply run HDAT2 and use the "Set Max" function to effectively make it a 5TB drive.
  2. This works, but unless the cache is a fault-tolerant btrfs array it won't be fault-tolerant, as it would be if the SSD was a member of the protected array.
  3. I'd copy all of the data off that drive NOW and get a replacement for it from a reputable manufacturer. I don't think you're going to get any help via the warranty -- Marshall is on the list of "defunct hard disk manufacturers" and there's no follow-up information on them. i.e. they apparently simply shut down -- weren't sold/acquired/etc.
  4. Simple fact is the 5900 rpm drives are PLENTY fast enough => anything that can sustain a data rate fast enough to saturate a Gb LAN is good enough for me. ... might change my mind when I (eventually) pick up a 10Gb LAN adapter
  5. Agree. Jumping from 8 to 10 simply isn't enough of a bump to make it worthwhile to replace them. Even 12TB is questionable -- I also wouldn't be surprised if you can get 16TB units in 2 years or so. Hard drives have come a L..O..N..G way since my first 26MB Seagate (a 14" drive that cost me $4500 !!)
  6. ... of course you could always buy 8TB WD Red Pro's or the HGST UltraStar He8's -- 1.33TB platters AND 7200 rpm
  7. Just out of curiosity, are the serial #'s of the drives recorded on the cases? e.g. do you need to mark the drive-case association so if you ever need to put the drive back in the case you get it in the proper case? I presume you have a "box full of cases" so you can get warranty service if needed ... although quite frankly these are enough cheaper than the bare drives that even if you had to toss a couple it'd still be a good deal.
  8. That's actually easy to confirm. The archive drives spin at 5900rpm (per Seagate), and have 1.33TB platters. I assume your 4TB HGSTs have 1TB platters (most common). So ... the HGST's take 8.33ms per revolution (at 7200 rpm) ... the archive drives take 10.17ms per revolution (at 5900 rpm) => which works out to 7.63ms for the same amount of data that the HGSTs will transfer in 8.33ms (since the platters are 33% denser) So yes, the Seagates transfer data faster. Of course if you're doing a lot of small transfers where the seek times are significant, then the HGSTs should be slightly faster, since they have slightly better seek times.
  9. Parity or not, there's no issue with these drives as parity drives as long as you don't have activity that fills the persistent cache -- and Seagate has done an excellent job of mitigating this impact, so it's VERY unlikely this will ever happen in most UnRAID scenarios -- especially the use case outlined here. There's a fairly extensive discussion on these drives here: Note particularly the extensive experience that Danioj has had with these drives.
  10. For the use outlined here, the Seagate archive drives are just fine -- including for parity. They do NOT have any write penalties UNLESS you "hit the wall" where the persistent cache is filled (which will dramatically slow things down until the cache is emptied). For an array where you (a) aren't writing to multiple disks are once, and (b) are changing relatively little data; the archive drives perform every bit as good as a non-SMR WD Red (for example). As for single vs. dual parity => as already outlined, it's simply a matter of whether or not you want to risk a failed rebuild due to a 2nd drive failure during the rebuild operation. Dual parity protects against that. Doesn't matter how many disks you have -- 6 disks or 26 disks, you could still have a 2nd failure. Clearly the more disks you have the higher the likelihood of the 2nd failure -- but if you're not backed up (as you indicated is the case) and want to absolutely minimize the likelihood of data loss due to this scenario, a 2nd parity drive isn't a bad bit of extra "insurance". FWIW, if you DO want an 8TB WD Red, and don't mind "shucking" the drive from an external unit, there's a very good deal at the moment where these are actually cheaper than the Seagate archives: Best Buy has the 8TB "EasyStore" drives for $180 ... these have 8TB Reds inside, which you can remove and use in an array. Note that there are warranty implications of doing this -- you'd likely need to replace the drive in the case if you ever needed warranty service (not hard to do as long as you're CAREFUL and don't damage the case when removing the drive); and the warranty is 2 years vs. the 3 years that a bare drive comes with. Nevertheless, it's not a bad option:
  11. ... and by the way I appreciate the kind offer; but I don't want to impose on your generosity, so I'll just bite the bullet and do my own testing
  12. Yes, I'm assuming as much. And there's absolutely NO rush => I do NOT need the extra storage ... I'm just ready to pick up 8 or so of the 8-10TB units for my "next" server. Of course once I have a few, I'll undoubtedly just go ahead and build the server.
  13. ... a bit off topic (as much of this thread has been) => but one wise bit of wisdom that comes with age: The Best Do-It-Yourself book is a check-book
  14. That's what teenage grandkids are for .... the like to make some extra $$, and I get to "supervise" (and drink beer while they do the work)
Copyright © 2005-2017 Lime Technology, Inc. unRAIDĀ® is a registered trademark of Lime Technology, Inc.