From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 339C6158042 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2024 19:12:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6B78AE08D1; Thu, 14 Nov 2024 19:12:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dormouse.elm.relay.mailchannels.net (dormouse.elm.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.212.50]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F184EE089C for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2024 19:12:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Sender-Id: thundermail|x-authsender|confabulate@kintzios.com Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 152A6C31EB for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2024 19:12:47 +0000 (UTC) ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-2022; d=mailchannels.net; t=1731611566; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=yGK8KrkiW7AEUtYUCcWGsdTFTrdiEUmOrjk1CCviRQR0Z7eBRMtCW7Ogo2u4Cq2ChcXxU5 CGRMzTYREaSb4BafgwaQ0d5Waszul2N5jQf49vwqznOqJksmZ2K4U439gMlJTdJ7seGBBN LlNP+w4PpVs00HU1hTY8eLrTulfElg+HG8CkMWgh1EPJsouYK/krXGSG/Kd4N5Vrno10E/ eDmy7afHb8lNONATTFwj5KsDmUNf3PZgVKUI2LOy6jr0d53oXm8WZnOLA2Z9+7fGCc0dNB BnOtmJLepf/Mz9wjgNEoff6TQwJ1AVeqRXSolaoUtwRHZrjxmVzrNkMxhFs2Pw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mailchannels.net; s=arc-2022; t=1731611566; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=c9TtC4qUgv9rt+UfzG6GLAUedtZn+ofaVVuy5rnpi6U=; b=AkYkrfDB2lB0HDcBeqjWgu94wHBVW7EMMCDIYrRWkluIcAfbdTbxXo0cg00ZF7zAx1MmEK fa5iIatg8rWrkquA1NjUR3F5i9iWk78nuqTDSpeQnf+PIVoWkhoqOjUc1YYzo4CGOON6TV syueO6Fsh/pynHeiiohUCt+3GQbviX42+mb+CMw0gtVixVvSBEj958PkJc+KF1xhbjwowR WJ0peN24Rj19l6Zmo3QfEbSy1Z8dNNqnlbKOCXQYTkF7Z+NMwc+WrsuL5TcZAMMyhbCaTP FAyN0Jx/pc9R4WTqc7iQQUiqzPMuYaxbvIEyqbseJIOZYZ0u/nOetFQo/jYbtQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; rspamd-7456989c76-tlrv6; auth=pass smtp.auth=thundermail smtp.mailfrom=confabulate@kintzios.com X-Sender-Id: thundermail|x-authsender|confabulate@kintzios.com X-MC-Relay: Neutral X-MailChannels-SenderId: thundermail|x-authsender|confabulate@kintzios.com X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: thundermail X-Zesty-Drop: 31ace5550d90541f_1731611566665_271571891 X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1731611566665:602521250 X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1731611566665 Received: from mailclean11.thundermail.uk (mailclean11.thundermail.uk [149.255.60.66]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) by 100.112.137.74 (trex/7.0.2); Thu, 14 Nov 2024 19:12:46 +0000 Received: from cloud238.thundercloud.uk (cloud238.thundercloud.uk [149.255.62.116]) by mailclean11.thundermail.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 399721E0007 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2024 19:12:44 +0000 (GMT) Authentication-Results: cloud238.thundercloud.uk; spf=pass (sender IP is 217.169.3.230) smtp.mailfrom=confabulate@kintzios.com smtp.helo=rogueboard.localnet Received-SPF: pass (cloud238.thundercloud.uk: connection is authenticated) From: Michael To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Seagate hard drives with dual actuators. Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 19:12:25 +0000 Message-ID: <5835905.DvuYhMxLoT@rogueboard> In-Reply-To: References: <1879585.atdPhlSkOF@rogueboard> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart6102787.lOV4Wx5bFT"; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-PPP-Message-ID: <173161156346.741337.3996164555405958269@cloud238.thundercloud.uk> X-PPP-Vhost: kintzios.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.51 / 999.00]; SIGNED_PGP(-2.00)[]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; ONCE_RECEIVED(0.20)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.20)[multipart/signed,text/plain]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(0.00)[kintzios.com,none]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; FUZZY_RATELIMITED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; REPLYTO_DOM_NEQ_TO_DOM(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:34931, ipnet:149.255.60.0/22, country:GB]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+,2:~]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; REPLYTO_ADDR_EQ_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM(-0.00)[-0.999]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(0.00)[+mx]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.00)[confabulate@kintzios.com] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 399721E0007 X-Rspamd-Action: no action X-Rspamd-Server: mailclean11 X-Archives-Salt: b44ffaaa-61fe-4697-89e0-46abf53beeba X-Archives-Hash: f3d3a0f25ba801c0dc2dac9c2ed2d12c --nextPart6102787.lOV4Wx5bFT Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; protected-headers="v1" From: Michael To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: confabulate@kintzios.com Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Seagate hard drives with dual actuators. Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 19:12:25 +0000 Message-ID: <5835905.DvuYhMxLoT@rogueboard> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Thursday 14 November 2024 17:00:07 GMT Dale wrote: > Michael wrote: > > On Wednesday 13 November 2024 23:10:10 GMT Dale wrote: > >> Howdy, > >>=20 > >> One of my PVs is about 83% full. Time to add more space, soon anyway. > >> I try not to go past 90%. Anyway, I was looking at hard drives and > >> noticed something new. I think I saw one a while back but didn't look > >> into it at the time. I'm looking at 18TB drives, right now. Some new > >> Seagate drives have dual actuators. Basically, they have two sets of > >> heads. In theory, if circumstances are right, it could read data twice > >> as fast. Of course, most of the time that won't be the case but it can > >> happen often enough to make it get data a little faster. Even a 25% or > >> 30% increase gives Seagate something to brag about. Another sales too= l. > >>=20 > >> Some heavy data users wouldn't mind either. > >>=20 > >> My question is this. Given they cost about $20 more, from what I've > >> found anyway, is it worth it? Is there a downside to this new set of > >> heads being added? I'm thinking a higher failure rate, more risk to > >> data or something like that. I think this is a fairly new thing, last > >> couple years or so maybe. We all know how some new things don't work > >> out. > >>=20 > >> Just looking for thoughts and opinions, facts if someone has some. > >> Failure rate compared to single actuator drives if there is such data. > >> My searched didn't help me find anything useful. > >>=20 > >> Thanks. > >>=20 > >> Dale > >>=20 > >> :-) :-) > >=20 > > I don't know much about these drives beyond what the OEM claims. From > > what I read, I can surmise the following hypotheses: > >=20 > > These drives draw more power from your PSU and although they are filled > > with helium to mitigate against higher power/heat, they will require > > better cooling at the margin than a conventional drive. > >=20 > > Your system will use dev-libs/libaio to read the whole disk as a single > > SATA drive (a SAS port will read it as two separate LUNs). The first 5= 0% > > of LBAs will be accessed by the first head and the last 50% by the other > > head. So far, so good. > >=20 > > Theoretically, I suspect this creates a higher probability of failure. = In > > the hypothetical scenario of a large sequential write where both heads > > are writing data of a single file, then both heads must succeed in their > > write operation. The cumulative probability of success of head A + head= B > > is calculated as P(A=E2=8B=82B). As an example, if say the probability= of a > > successful write of each head is 80%, the cumulative probability of both > > heads succeeding is only 64%: > >=20 > > 0.8 * 0.8 =3D 0.64 > >=20 > > As long as I didn't make any glaring errors, this simplistic thought > > experiment assumes all else being equal with a conventional single head > > drive, but it never is. The reliability of a conventional non-helium > > filled drive may be lower to start with. Seagate claim their Exos 2 > > reliability is comparable to other enterprise-grade hard drives, but I > > don't have any real world experience to share here. I expect by the ti= me > > enough reliability statistics are available, the OEMs would have moved = on > > to different drive technologies. > >=20 > > When considering buying this drive you could look at the market segment > > needs and use cases Seagate/WD could have tried to address by developing > > and marketing this technology. These drives are for cloud storage > > implementations, where higher IOPS, data density and speed of read/write > > is > > desired, while everything is RAID'ed and backed up. The trade off is > > power > > usage and heat. > >=20 > > Personally, I tend to buy n-1 versions of storage solutions, for the > > following reasons: > >=20 > > 1. Price per GB is cheaper. > > 2. Any bad news and rumours about novel failing technologies or unsuita= ble > > implementations (e.g. unmarked SMRs being used in NAS) tend to spread f= ar > > and wide over time. > > 3. High volume sellers start offering discounts for older models. > >=20 > > However, I don't have a need to store the amount of data you do. Most = of > > my drives stay empty. Here's a 4TB spinning disk with 3 OS and 9 > > partitions: > >=20 > > ~ # gdisk -l /dev/sda | grep TiB > > Disk /dev/sda: 7814037168 sectors, 3.6 TiB > > Total free space is 6986885052 sectors (3.3 TiB) > >=20 > > HTH >=20 > Sounds like my system may not can even handle one of these. I'm not > sure my SATA ports support that stuff. I think your PC would handle these fine. > It sounds like this is not something I really need anyway. Well, this is more to the point. ;-) =20 > After all, I'm already spanning my data > over three drives. I'm sure some data is coming from each drive. No > way to really know for sure but makes sense.=20 >=20 > Do you have a link or something to a place that explains what parts of > the Seagate model number means? I know ST is for Seagate. The size is > next. After that, everything I find is old and outdated. I looked on > the Seagate website to but had no luck. I figure someone made one, > somewhere. A link would be fine. This document is from 2011, I don't know if they changed their nomenclature= =20 since then. https://www.seagate.com/files/staticfiles/docs/pdf/marketing/st-model-numbe= r-cheat-sheet-sc504-1-1102us.pdf > Thanks. >=20 > Dale >=20 > :-) :-)=20 The only Seagate 7200RPM disk I have started playing up a month ago. I now= =20 have to replace it. :-( --nextPart6102787.lOV4Wx5bFT Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEXqhvaVh2ERicA8Ceseqq9sKVZxkFAmc2S5kACgkQseqq9sKV ZxlPtg/+IDBFx5iQNDgHlKyptn9f/sl/qHgOnd2wPuAXJXFkoGPQh7MVLLiAEuvO 5w2YeL7+omQ10P+AJD+fmoNxoERmRySSHU8uRqyf22A/dZsQSQ+Bl/BveNbRMd1z G4Xh7H4cJJ1vv0LJt1ZkthpAWcxJdb4TLD6rrZ0rsB9817aUXxqF2CwzMR4LGXQO DhngouEEHicyDeAL+uscbVVfwJPZtrwt3CfcYFqAF3Mw27Zp0/Mbfno/79tTE4Th rg7gL9qRv4h5ZB7Rz5artutZePOZh+M5jdHBou0Tu3zxsD+TrGRcQHo40iLej3Uw CziBPMrvl5ZhnCGOOxFPD3a47MaSKTRrz+lywDoQLj2eIM7JrPB7PryU7EViaC2o G3nqR+avKtVL7UgJOl21DZ2+w3z6yrQUwN958fH3T/nHe5HQ2NPsngF8oM1bsA7F M/mLmvvSasj0O+KUtRP3s037WL2L8EB+Pt7gSX78jxjcRxMBdfCvAw/NN4jkSG+F Fe/X9eOOSrSY9ebw0ozq43wlJhTKdKa9Lmwm4eiAZ44HGQ/crF6NjU/PDZ7UyzRE e7NAgno7enD0Lc997BZckAT1wsaj3gtPQAgNi/+Sc/P25tss23fTOQO2uZxdCqgW 6x+06WXTJRJ/Vu3S0N5mp53VXnNiIgRje0skHu3urKsRmpmaPQo= =Aghc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart6102787.lOV4Wx5bFT--