Edited by HeartBurnKid: Agent of R.O.A.C.H. at 11/10/09 12:20 PM
HeartBurnKid: Agent of R.O.A.C.H. was starred
HeartBurnKid: Agent of R.O.A.C.H. was unstarred
Leeloo: ...jella boom! Korben Dallas: Boom. Yeah, I understand boom. Leeloo:Bada boom. Korben Dallas: Big... yeah, big bada boom. Leeloo: Big! Bada big boom! Big! BOOM! Korben Dallas: Yeah! Big bada boom! Leeloo:Bada boom! Korben Dallas: Yeah-hahaha! Big boom! Big bada boom!
i'm running (6) 7200rpm drives in my FreeNAS box. i guess i could have gone with 5400rpm, but i already had all the hardware so i didn't really buy new components when i put the unit together.
@waclark57 i think you missed the point. the post clearly says, "The main bottleneck in any NAS is the RAID engine. Since many NAS units don't include a dedicated controller, oftentimes the speed of the drive just doesn't matter. If you're using a blazing-fast hardware RAID card in your own custom built setup, then drive speed might make a difference. But for most consumer units, the controller is the bottleneck."
with that in mind, drive speed obviously isn't an issue in consumer based NAS systems. sure if you have maddd money to spend on high end hardware, and you have a beefy raid controller, 10k or 15k drives will make a difference. #diy
I read this article yesterday and there are a few points that need to be noted. First they used older 7200 RPM drives and current generation 5400 RPM drives. It would have been more meaningful if both sets of drives were current generation.
The other note is that if you are setting up RAID 1 the 7200 RPM drives may actually be faster. This is because in the article they rationalize that it is the lack of a hardware RAID controller that causes the bottle neck because the CPU is doing all the XOR calculations. However in RAID 1 no XOR's are calculated because the drives contents are identical.
Put half in RAID 0 and half as backup....(I forget which RAID number that makes it) and hook it up via Fibre channel to your Xserve that you're logged into via open directory (and that your home folder is hosted on) via gigabit ethernet.
What would LHer's recommend in terms of the best reliability 1TB drives for a NAS? Is that size in the sweet spot at this point? Am I going to significantly decrease reliability using 2TB drives? #diy
@AmphetamineCrown: The Western Digital Caviar Black drives are by far the most reliable. [www.newegg.com]
In fact, I just ordered two of these yesterday!
Judging from current trends, virtually all of the 2TB drives currently out have pretty bad reliability track records. I had considered them, too, but I don't want to waste money on them.
AmphetamineCrown promoted this comment
Edited by David Frederick Becker at 11/07/09 1:15 PM
David Frederick Becker was starred
David Frederick Becker was unstarred
@AmphetamineCrown: If you're primary goal is the reliability of an individual drive and you're willing to pay the premium an "enterprise" drive like the Barracuda ES.2 or something from the newer Constellation line is going to give you the best reliability, especially if you plan on running 24/7.
If cost is more of a factor, you might consider 1.5TB drives. Seagate (Barracuda LP), WD (Caviar Green), and Samsung (Eco Green F2) all have low-spindle-speed 1.5TB drives. Put them in a RAID 5 or RAID 6 configuration for reliability, utilize the 3-year warranty if needed, and you'll be fine.
I personally just put together a NAS with 6 1.5 TB Barracuda LPs in a RAID 6 running the Openfiler NAS software and its been running like a champ. 70MB/s over gigabit ethernet without jumbo frames enabled. #diy
@brisketboy: @David Frederick Becker: I've actually been using the Barracuda ES.2s in my 6 drive ReadyNAS. It is about a year old, and I replaced one a couple months ago when the monitoring software started detecting errors. Now I'm starting to see errors on two other drives. As easy as they are to replace, I'm not really liking the concept of running through 3 drives a year.
Maybe I'll try the Caviar black drives and see how they do. Seems like I'm going to develop quite the history with replacing drives. #diy
Do we expect these to lower the prices of memory beyond the usual results of technology decreasing in cost over time? Small gadgets, absolutely - but I am not certain I see how it will change the pricing picture any further than it would normally. #samsungflashmemorychip
@Domo: Depends on who you're looking for. I'm sure Rosa would command a pretty healthy rate, and most anyone with a golden star under their name is gonna set you back quite a bit, so I'd guess a few minutes at most.
SteveDave, however ... well let's just say you better cash in that 401K. #samsungdualviewtl225
@Rosa Golijan: Oh, c'mon. You know I would never do that to you here. Besides, Lux would probably have more use for those anyway. #samsungdualviewtl225
12:18 PM
Anyway, what's the point of Bada? Why not just throw Android on there and be done with it?
10:54 AM
Korben Dallas: Boom. Yeah, I understand boom.
Leeloo: Bada boom.
Korben Dallas: Big... yeah, big bada boom.
Leeloo: Big! Bada big boom! Big! BOOM!
Korben Dallas: Yeah! Big bada boom!
Leeloo: Bada boom!
Korben Dallas: Yeah-hahaha! Big boom! Big bada boom!
12:19 PM
10:43 AM
kills self #samsungbada
10:52 AM
.....*steals Kaiser's wallet then calls police*
*quietly walks away* #samsungbada
11/07/09
@waclark57 i think you missed the point. the post clearly says, "The main bottleneck in any NAS is the RAID engine. Since many NAS units don't include a dedicated controller, oftentimes the speed of the drive just doesn't matter. If you're using a blazing-fast hardware RAID card in your own custom built setup, then drive speed might make a difference. But for most consumer units, the controller is the bottleneck."
with that in mind, drive speed obviously isn't an issue in consumer based NAS systems. sure if you have maddd money to spend on high end hardware, and you have a beefy raid controller, 10k or 15k drives will make a difference. #diy
11/07/09
Currently at 2TB + parity and expandable up to 6 drives before I have to upgrade the software license to the next tier (16 drives). #diy
11/09/09
11/07/09
The other note is that if you are setting up RAID 1 the 7200 RPM drives may actually be faster. This is because in the article they rationalize that it is the lack of a hardware RAID controller that causes the bottle neck because the CPU is doing all the XOR calculations. However in RAID 1 no XOR's are calculated because the drives contents are identical.
just my 2 cents #diy
11/07/09
[www.promise.com]
Put half in RAID 0 and half as backup....(I forget which RAID number that makes it) and hook it up via Fibre channel to your Xserve that you're logged into via open directory (and that your home folder is hosted on) via gigabit ethernet.
:D #diy
11/07/09
11/07/09
11/07/09
In fact, I just ordered two of these yesterday!
Judging from current trends, virtually all of the 2TB drives currently out have pretty bad reliability track records. I had considered them, too, but I don't want to waste money on them.
11/07/09
If cost is more of a factor, you might consider 1.5TB drives. Seagate (Barracuda LP), WD (Caviar Green), and Samsung (Eco Green F2) all have low-spindle-speed 1.5TB drives. Put them in a RAID 5 or RAID 6 configuration for reliability, utilize the 3-year warranty if needed, and you'll be fine.
I personally just put together a NAS with 6 1.5 TB Barracuda LPs in a RAID 6 running the Openfiler NAS software and its been running like a champ. 70MB/s over gigabit ethernet without jumbo frames enabled. #diy
11/07/09
Maybe I'll try the Caviar black drives and see how they do. Seems like I'm going to develop quite the history with replacing drives. #diy
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
@mattycakes: Like this...
#samsungflashmemorychip
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
SteveDave, however ... well let's just say you better cash in that 401K. #samsungdualviewtl225
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09