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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47017158042 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2024 20:33:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 77C1BE0938; Thu, 14 Nov 2024 20:33:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yw1-x1133.google.com (mail-yw1-x1133.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1133]) (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 0B941E08FF for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2024 20:33:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw1-x1133.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-6eb0c2dda3cso11734267b3.1 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2024 12:33:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1731616417; x=1732221217; darn=lists.gentoo.org; h=in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date:message-id:autocrypt:from :references:to:subject:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=I0w5nqcIfXhSgzfcxFGfrzVYIRv25CWOuPBdB33pOdc=; b=jQSj4voPOXhZHzzEiPq8v1fSoo9Ob2HkPwYBMHsqdYgDTIsYIoj0PdotEvCvx3TKQv 9hDMB5uXLaNp/R5Ds5N3JFkq9XuDDDfDQodEwysGu5Ncm1kKilellwf/Yk39SIXcPrcX O1qr9rxHamxuEIcMq7/FSAwWzlzfWI7eun/XPT3S+CsmNBj64NNveyW0g8nEu9KFwMVa QRIQsre21ijQuxNdM/YzOvzAJdoIOHPaSdVIh28H/6Saiu1Koi0YfCZ2sN2VBLMt4DrR LAbBgwJcsuCrBNfLUyO9hULUDSvpDQAUIrTaLOnoLHD5KVZYCYP6Am2zB8BX57NF3KHI 7FJg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1731616417; x=1732221217; h=in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date:message-id:autocrypt:from :references:to:subject:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=I0w5nqcIfXhSgzfcxFGfrzVYIRv25CWOuPBdB33pOdc=; b=t6a55ew+04TjPsaOqMZD470aauJCUWhlmEXOXLFW03ssRA7oo4or0tFseotOPjTj56 ifqh5ISuQpU9zLFXuyQM/Z+xJ/q9vouxuROYAxOMbDk1+XLvUCrl6ru8W6kdsI7rqEP5 0jtf2iNyHOSsXjTcjYDBaU0DjFXP+DiAJ+yU4lVbWe6No7XZEoH5FBV4NrBHaveW+3bv XbOYdP7MDjjQonTEZldaz4ailp38b6ggEkufoEskknzOF5gGfz8qHgEgeHv1o6b//unx L0hXVYehk/YQTd0dC2UsV4sUikdCr7UsOMdSMVO1uoUQbaHInb0k9r4vUVmtjzFEmIZB O6OA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyntSZ5VjICfdocV/VhePiT6LN3VNRdAFFbTVMtWSBpM9wURawT yiQFZseM+uDC+S2MqhnHTLx6zy5W5gCweH8NHlDRrZi0rMSy3nodaSLMEA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHzuMjIUy0X5VLrC4xxZp9fg0Q1Nq+yinS9RwTpups+4BXrD4Jpgh7ZIDOIwLvYxIX6WzDYEw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:490e:b0:652:5838:54ef with SMTP id 00721157ae682-6ee55cff0c8mr3618527b3.37.1731616416907; Thu, 14 Nov 2024 12:33:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.8.8.10] ([92.119.19.11]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 00721157ae682-6ee44049d95sm4164067b3.47.2024.11.14.12.33.35 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 14 Nov 2024 12:33:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Seagate hard drives with dual actuators. To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org References: <1879585.atdPhlSkOF@rogueboard> <5835905.DvuYhMxLoT@rogueboard> From: Dale Autocrypt: addr=rdalek1967@gmail.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQINBGFSciYBEADcEGMyJBSuavKO/XKUVvgkxck7Nl8Iuu8N2lcnRji/rSKg5c1Acix1ll9i oW8JBCHwvn0+Xy60BvEsqcup3YSHw5STl/bR1ePEehtnYrg8FdjdS91+B805RfnKMm69rFVI wLSBHQrSG1yxHd8CloWoEdhmVtP24buajbh114bgXd9ahtpZrCVMrWdWYUg2mEXguGV5uNAh Rf8SWxDNc79w24JxsV34a8niMUYMjzWr0rafIbzk732X38vGjVMLo/2mMpkbp9mPp++LHoY+ 0Pet8zxxdXPJSCd475kza1AD+hhSyBZXB9yknYWgyY3cZe1rGmooJSi2KX4QxO7npwLThcO1 be6KKRkd35+Fi/a1BzVOHsZMiK/gcwxEFoMd27gir4ehaeHJfFXl+65w4hj0EsOZSxrJrm2C R50g5By2czSKP1bADEygFNpIJj51AR+wM88NImG2RPtlT2maYBzazvF05g65cdHXGp1C7W5P wwwKU2DgABB2t7N7z5A69LnryBRw4zUYDRRYLTYlBlYgg+xILm2c0OrBdxJgLJa7JE50Eo25 d3PFwt9J0gYvqy6sPFLl9So0sDg9zm0hKQtXOP5kgropUFGrNoJI+mjwF4rYLRBVzZwNAvlO OhEvHubBo3mEllv4x+FeptwXZxlk7gUsdqI8AxnFB8K9wi6FVQARAQABtBtEYWxlIDxyZGFs ZWsxOTY3QGdtYWlsLmNvbT6JAk4EEwEIADgCGyMFCwkIBwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AW IQQSG1h01ruv/WNXc3Q3RqOgiQH1GwUCYVJy8gAKCRA3RqOgiQH1G+waEACeTZCt77jnRAmQ AV7otKuZekDWiLi3Eig8tj5ZJiCNSYA/hIxzmexRP0GMqjitcXK1iGwWcvMzzvIq30GAjIfB 4BR38cnXbtBa6fNewiT7QaZe/Hn6yBRldXNQypzbHy+/o27bUEy+oX4rE7etUgEHQAjuw7xz XFWg4tH1/KJvsOVY5upnWc5LdxYhsuQ3dQD4b22GsK0pOBDfb9PiirYM8eGKvrVuq4E/c75z lDDFhINl18lNZ9D0ZFL3IkTjHsAAqFH9uhnnEB8CWdHbBewPEfRaOhBUYWZ3Q8uTkmDgZT8q D9jlvLEdw7Nh2ApdxoepnI/4D+ql2Gr4DtH7SEPydr5gcf1Qr/2bXRb1hAYnIVcbncs/Bm3Z bkRKPVWMfE3Fusa+p5hMzixk0YysMaTHlc7mYRYAEZGnPMXnmcCbetwARU7A0yz1M1kCMOAQ Lsz8KH5kv3cRenMB6SFfjND2JfAK61H5TtnPq3L8noS2ZykRYxq9Nm3X64O1tJojIKBoZFr8 AwYNCvqC6puUyGMuzHPh7jPof8glfrrEKIYUvNPGMDoVX3IGetxh/9l6NcxgFA4JGoR+LS3C zmeNrwlllAe3OEUfKoWVQ+pagpSdM+8hHolaSda4Ys66Z3fCR4ZvcTqfhTAVskpqdXa4isAk 7vTcXu3L499ttywEp7rJTbkCDQRhUnImARAAncUdVhmtRr59zqpTUppKroQYlzR0jv8oa7DG K4gakTAT2N7evnI9wpssmzyVk8VEiLzhnFQ/Ol3FRt6hZCXDJt0clyHOyTfvz/MNFttWuZTc mLpSvmRR6VRjAH+Tz3Eam2xUw3PGuH97BcXQ3NnX3msv1UDxtxxBu6e2YrdeOhrCUSgzokcJ 98ChUNy934cgepPybAI12lSWqVFQ1aG7jExZfiUk+333fPSDbpKoZbTW5YJLXbycmW/C1IWL qYQyNjRWKaGoJtUWFhhmNiOQct7n90aKivNVPavmN+UQ9LlMaINtf9T6XCzLfogCFsulDCDJ 0yNQLDTurHaB4E71xoctgXmLLq9z1RQ0W2XiVAAOZQj6K3+d0AOUjDhCQ2QW8dUSq0ckkZXV DKVJOGS8Nhf2eIWIqRnP3AcUiiaiFGqUaVUmUAZ6h/oJmgghEu/1S+pcuUKU5i69+XCZ3hH2 Jzwzbf7K+FAIkOhCfHncF8i1N1pk00pOVykNnqHTfFo3qFusHt0ZWgXVnnn4pYdXqZNoDhvF BRE5Vm4k/k96Pw8HRx6Os6eFSRrlqGzRgqsu86FekxusXB9UGv4lJhtU/J+8MRWsh22K718s DbQnABicGKFz1qQlWvcf59oTByhLINJCBt1WXl+TzJDXepr3QSkqmK41dO9Hob97C9dMiK8A EQEAAYkCNgQYAQgAIAIbDBYhBBIbWHTWu6/9Y1dzdDdGo6CJAfUbBQJhUnLyAAoJEDdGo6CJ AfUbVHIQAKSWw620vPhR3A/njU2z77F3z/Jk+HTKdE3fIyWSWdkYN7CBFL0NguOMP30WZ+qE sJhZu7T5hf251MwQUUt27xlfnKYOmQs7CqONlXuXlGZI6WufrUjxNcVz+5gJsqvUWuuJWsgg sDmE92IBnfG/f81fPHWQyfr/SF4wYDMyoFp5xCCQpp1zB63iuFvvrhxBkEHzmbRtVDOhl0Xp BVEDR1w3QRACw9QJD/KM05Czv9JNQYlwinWO/OaQ9cMlUpKLgswUPg9IZ5vucxScfuAUA5uC B1jlAQ8ZPlVukBmbEv5RGOv+lpuEbA3YDMVtEeH4YMFbjt/+vH3Cr2vTbp5JlpByLburJEH0 WXZLUawEfUsZvVwpOuJK75vaa2HYXee+Cb3iCIzwfIfctdlqzUcbGRczlRNM59hpvj4z29Gh 3kAxVHItAYq54ikxQ9l4hQ8s9sLYPbX/WtcBxNX8crBSw0FLnmzGleVEtBHyqtt5CLzQNgrj GYWl1vKDUmRPw1CdZ1c+fMN9CY11jOM5B5ZnqZWfDeVYO2iJ5SuvTycChexCb8WYn1bdCBIo bBtga2RBXbVt4Mh9E4owsszefn51MwfjXxB20Fc5k3GU1AVpTCMs3ayYCzo0b2pvEvdjtDcA CYLEFPWgaFX9iQAM/CDfKvTtvgGWpqtCL2raq/mQoJEU Message-ID: <6461ae0f-3a98-6325-9915-3c78b0df237a@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 14:33:35 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.19 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 In-Reply-To: <5835905.DvuYhMxLoT@rogueboard> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------82FB75B7F4E98299CFA2A644" X-Archives-Salt: dc8ed9cc-312f-42da-aee8-00fd482da628 X-Archives-Hash: 72d24bc9b8215216414861b57b6a305c This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------82FB75B7F4E98299CFA2A644 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Michael wrote: > 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, >>>> >>>> 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 tool. >>>> >>>> Some heavy data users wouldn't mind either. >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> Dale >>>> >>>> :-) :-) >>> I don't know much about these drives beyond what the OEM claims. From >>> what I read, I can surmise the following hypotheses: >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> 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 50% >>> of LBAs will be accessed by the first head and the last 50% by the other >>> head. So far, so good. >>> >>> 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⋂B). 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%: >>> >>> 0.8 * 0.8 = 0.64 >>> >>> 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 time >>> enough reliability statistics are available, the OEMs would have moved on >>> to different drive technologies. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> Personally, I tend to buy n-1 versions of storage solutions, for the >>> following reasons: >>> >>> 1. Price per GB is cheaper. >>> 2. Any bad news and rumours about novel failing technologies or unsuitable >>> implementations (e.g. unmarked SMRs being used in NAS) tend to spread far >>> and wide over time. >>> 3. High volume sellers start offering discounts for older models. >>> >>> 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: >>> >>> ~ # gdisk -l /dev/sda | grep TiB >>> Disk /dev/sda: 7814037168 sectors, 3.6 TiB >>> Total free space is 6986885052 sectors (3.3 TiB) >>> >>> HTH >> 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. ;-) > > >> 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. >> >> 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 > since then. > > https://www.seagate.com/files/staticfiles/docs/pdf/marketing/st-model-number-cheat-sheet-sc504-1-1102us.pdf > > >> Thanks. >> >> Dale >> >> :-) :-) > The only Seagate 7200RPM disk I have started playing up a month ago. I now > have to replace it. :-( Yea, I found that one too.  I see drives with letters that are not listed under Segment.  They got new stuff, or changed letters to trick folks.  I emailed the company I usually buy drives from, they do server stuff, but haven't heard back yet.  Could be, there isn't one for new drives.  Could be they there to make it look like they mean something but don't, again, to trick folks.  I've had a Seagate, a Maxtor from way back and a Western Digital go bad.  This is one reason I don't knock any drive maker.  Any of them can produce a bad drive.  What matters, if they stand behind it and make it good or not.  It's one thing that kinda gets on my nerves about SMR.  It seems, sounds, like they tried to hide it from people to make money.  Thing is, as some learned, they don't do well in a RAID and some other situations.  Heck, they do OK reading but when writing, they can get real slow when writing a lot of data.  Then you have to wait until it gets done redoing things so that it is complete.  I still have that SMR drive for a backup.  It completes the backup pretty quick, if it isn't much data, but after it is done, it does that bumpy thing for a lot longer than the copy process does.  I wish I never bought that thing.  The one good thing, I can unmount it and unhook the SATA cable while it finishes.  All it needs is power.  Still annoying tho. Think I'll try for a 18TB drive with one actuator.  Oh, some info on my data storage.  This doesn't include backup drives.  root@Gentoo-1 / # dfc FILESYSTEM               (=) USED      FREE (-)  %USED   USED AVAILABLE  TOTAL MOUNTED ON               /dev/root                [===-----------------]  11.4%  24.6G    348.0G 392.7G /                        devtmpfs                 [--------------------]   0.0%   0.0B     10.0M  10.0M /dev                     tmpfs                    [=-------------------]   0.0%   1.7M     25.1G  25.1G /run                     efivarfs                 [=========-----------]  43.2%  50.3K     72.7K 128.0K +ys/firmware/efi/efivars shm                      [=-------------------]   0.0% 136.0K     62.9G  62.9G /dev/shm                 /dev/nvme0n1p2           [==------------------]   6.4% 137.5M      9.2G   9.8G /boot                    /dev/nvme0n1p4           [=====---------------]  20.9%  18.8G    139.3G 176.1G /var                     +v/mapper/home2-home--lv [=====---------------]  21.5%   1.4T      5.7T   7.2T /home                    /dev/nvme0n1p1           [=-------------------]   0.0% 152.0K      2.0G   2.0G /efi                     +ev/mapper/datavg-datalv [=================---]  83.3%  34.6T      6.9T  41.5T /home/dale/Desktop/Data  tmpfs                    [=-------------------]   0.0%   4.0K     70.0G  70.0G /var/tmp/portage         tmpfs                    [=-------------------]   0.0%  44.0K     12.6G  12.6G /run/user/1000           /dev/mapper/crypt        [===============-----]  73.9%  34.8T     12.3T  47.1T /home/dale/Desktop/Crypt /dev/mapper/6tb-main     [=============-------]  61.2%   3.3T      2.1T   5.4T /mnt/6tb-main            SUM:                     [===============-----]  72.7%  74.2T     27.6T 102.0T root@Gentoo-1 / # pvs -O vg_name   PV         VG       Fmt  Attr PSize  PFree   /dev/sde1  datavg   lvm2 a--  12.73t    0   /dev/sdc1  datavg   lvm2 a--  14.55t    0   /dev/sdb1  datavg   lvm2 a--  14.55t    0   /dev/sda1  home2    lvm2 a--  <7.28t    0   /dev/sdf1  vg.crypt lvm2 a--  16.37t    0   /dev/sdd1  vg.crypt lvm2 a--  14.55t    0   /dev/sdg1  vg.crypt lvm2 a--  16.37t    0 root@Gentoo-1 / # That looks better in a Konsole.  Oooo.  I'm over 100TBs now.  O_O  Dale :-)  :-)  --------------82FB75B7F4E98299CFA2A644 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Michael wrote:
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,

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 tool.

 Some heavy data users wouldn't mind either.

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.

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.

Thanks.

Dale

:-)  :-)

I don't know much about these drives beyond what the OEM claims.  From
what I read, I can surmise the following hypotheses:

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.

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 50%
of LBAs will be accessed by the first head and the last 50% by the other
head.  So far, so good.

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⋂B).  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%:

0.8 * 0.8 = 0.64

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 time
enough reliability statistics are available, the OEMs would have moved on
to different drive technologies.

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.

Personally, I tend to buy n-1 versions of storage solutions, for the
following reasons:

1. Price per GB is cheaper.
2. Any bad news and rumours about novel failing technologies or unsuitable
implementations (e.g. unmarked SMRs being used in NAS) tend to spread far
and wide over time.
3. High volume sellers start offering discounts for older models.

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:

~ # gdisk -l /dev/sda | grep TiB
Disk /dev/sda: 7814037168 sectors, 3.6 TiB
Total free space is 6986885052 sectors (3.3 TiB)

HTH

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.  ;-)
 


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. 

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 
since then.

https://www.seagate.com/files/staticfiles/docs/pdf/marketing/st-model-number-cheat-sheet-sc504-1-1102us.pdf



Thanks.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

The only Seagate 7200RPM disk I have started playing up a month ago.  I now 
have to replace it.  :-(


Yea, I found that one too.  I see drives with letters that are not listed under Segment.  They got new stuff, or changed letters to trick folks.  I emailed the company I usually buy drives from, they do server stuff, but haven't heard back yet.  Could be, there isn't one for new drives.  Could be they there to make it look like they mean something but don't, again, to trick folks. 

I've had a Seagate, a Maxtor from way back and a Western Digital go bad.  This is one reason I don't knock any drive maker.  Any of them can produce a bad drive.  What matters, if they stand behind it and make it good or not.  It's one thing that kinda gets on my nerves about SMR.  It seems, sounds, like they tried to hide it from people to make money.  Thing is, as some learned, they don't do well in a RAID and some other situations.  Heck, they do OK reading but when writing, they can get real slow when writing a lot of data.  Then you have to wait until it gets done redoing things so that it is complete.  I still have that SMR drive for a backup.  It completes the backup pretty quick, if it isn't much data, but after it is done, it does that bumpy thing for a lot longer than the copy process does.  I wish I never bought that thing.  The one good thing, I can unmount it and unhook the SATA cable while it finishes.  All it needs is power.  Still annoying tho.

Think I'll try for a 18TB drive with one actuator.  Oh, some info on my data storage.  This doesn't include backup drives. 


root@Gentoo-1 / # dfc
FILESYSTEM               (=) USED      FREE (-)  %USED   USED AVAILABLE  TOTAL MOUNTED ON              
/dev/root                [===-----------------]  11.4%  24.6G    348.0G 392.7G /                       
devtmpfs                 [--------------------]   0.0%   0.0B     10.0M  10.0M /dev                    
tmpfs                    [=-------------------]   0.0%   1.7M     25.1G  25.1G /run                    
efivarfs                 [=========-----------]  43.2%  50.3K     72.7K 128.0K +ys/firmware/efi/efivars
shm                      [=-------------------]   0.0% 136.0K     62.9G  62.9G /dev/shm                
/dev/nvme0n1p2           [==------------------]   6.4% 137.5M      9.2G   9.8G /boot                   
/dev/nvme0n1p4           [=====---------------]  20.9%  18.8G    139.3G 176.1G /var                    
+v/mapper/home2-home--lv [=====---------------]  21.5%   1.4T      5.7T   7.2T /home                   
/dev/nvme0n1p1           [=-------------------]   0.0% 152.0K      2.0G   2.0G /efi                    
+ev/mapper/datavg-datalv [=================---]  83.3%  34.6T      6.9T  41.5T /home/dale/Desktop/Data 
tmpfs                    [=-------------------]   0.0%   4.0K     70.0G  70.0G /var/tmp/portage        
tmpfs                    [=-------------------]   0.0%  44.0K     12.6G  12.6G /run/user/1000          
/dev/mapper/crypt        [===============-----]  73.9%  34.8T     12.3T  47.1T /home/dale/Desktop/Crypt
/dev/mapper/6tb-main     [=============-------]  61.2%   3.3T      2.1T   5.4T /mnt/6tb-main           
SUM:                     [===============-----]  72.7%  74.2T     27.6T 102.0T
root@Gentoo-1 / # pvs -O vg_name
  PV         VG       Fmt  Attr PSize  PFree
  /dev/sde1  datavg   lvm2 a--  12.73t    0
  /dev/sdc1  datavg   lvm2 a--  14.55t    0
  /dev/sdb1  datavg   lvm2 a--  14.55t    0
  /dev/sda1  home2    lvm2 a--  <7.28t    0
  /dev/sdf1  vg.crypt lvm2 a--  16.37t    0
  /dev/sdd1  vg.crypt lvm2 a--  14.55t    0
  /dev/sdg1  vg.crypt lvm2 a--  16.37t    0
root@Gentoo-1 / #



That looks better in a Konsole.  Oooo.  I'm over 100TBs now.  O_O 

Dale

:-)  :-) 
--------------82FB75B7F4E98299CFA2A644--