| 1 |
Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 8:25 AM Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> If they are used as normal PC drives for regular writing |
| 4 |
>> of data, or with back up commands which use rsync, cp, etc. then the disk will |
| 5 |
>> fail much sooner than expected because of repeated multiple areas being |
| 6 |
>> deleted, before each smaller write. I recall reading about how short the life |
| 7 |
>> of SMR drives was shown to be when used in NAS devices - check google or |
| 8 |
>> youtube if you're interested in the specifics. |
| 9 |
> Can you give a link - I'm not finding anything, and I'm a bit dubious |
| 10 |
> of this claim, because they still are just hard drives. These aren't |
| 11 |
> SSDs and hard drives should not have any kind of erasure limit. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Now, an SMR used for random writes is going to be a REALLY busy drive, |
| 14 |
> so I could see the drive being subject to a lot more wear and tear. |
| 15 |
> I'm just not aware of any kind of serious study. And of course any |
| 16 |
> particular model of hard drive can have reliability issues (just look |
| 17 |
> up the various reliability studies). |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I ran up on this article however, it is a short time frame. Still might |
| 21 |
be a interesting read tho. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
https://blogs.dropbox.com/tech/2019/07/smr-what-we-learned-in-our-first-year/ |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I'm still a bit curious and somewhat untrusting of those things tho. |
| 26 |
Regular hard drives go bad often enough as it is. We don't need some |
| 27 |
fancy unknown thing inserted just to add more issues. Sort of reminds |
| 28 |
me of the init thingy. Each thing added is another failure point. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I'm going to test my ebay skills and see if I can find some non-SMR |
| 31 |
drives. It sounds like some require some research to know if they are |
| 32 |
or not. :/ |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Dale |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
:-) :-) |
Archives