1 |
> The thing is, EVERY |
2 |
manufacturer has had drives like these. Well, the Hitachi drives |
3 |
Backblaze goes on about would be an exception |
4 |
|
5 |
you've clearly never heard of DeathStars if you think Hitachi is an exception... |
6 |
|
7 |
-John |
8 |
Sent from my phone |
9 |
|
10 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
11 |
|
12 |
>On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 7:49 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
13 |
>> |
14 |
>> I also found this after the reply from Ian. |
15 |
>> |
16 |
>> https://www.backblaze.com/blog/3tb-hard-drive-failure/ |
17 |
>> |
18 |
>> No wonder they had it on sale. Heck, why didn't they just say it was a |
19 |
>> good door stop instead of a hard drive??? |
20 |
>> |
21 |
> |
22 |
>Yeah, the only reason I'd want to use that model drive is if I had a |
23 |
>raid5 composed of entirely different drives and for some reason the |
24 |
>discount on the Seagate 3TB drive let me bump it up to a raid6 (and to |
25 |
>be sure I'd never put more than one of those in an array). It is |
26 |
>basically a doorstop. |
27 |
> |
28 |
>I had two of those go in the span of a year. One was replaced under |
29 |
>warranty. The next was the warranty replacement. That one was no |
30 |
>longer under warranty, but after a scathing Amazon review Seagate |
31 |
>actually commented on the review asking me to contact them about a |
32 |
>replacement. I didn't bother - I really was tired of swapping out |
33 |
>drives at that pace and didn't consider the considerably-higher risk |
34 |
>of a double failure worth it. |
35 |
> |
36 |
>i'd have to check - I think I picked a 4TB Seagate NAS drive to replace it. |
37 |
> |
38 |
>Somebody suggested not buying Seagate. The thing is, EVERY |
39 |
>manufacturer has had drives like these. Well, the Hitachi drives |
40 |
>Backblaze goes on about would be an exception, but they're |
41 |
>SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive and I don't think it is worth the premium |
42 |
>in a RAID. For a single-drive system I'd strongly consider them. I |
43 |
>think I heard they were bought out at some point, so we'll see if |
44 |
>their reputation holds. |
45 |
> |
46 |
>And that's the thing with brand reputations. These days MBAs milk |
47 |
>reputations. Some finance guy realizes that people will buy this |
48 |
>year's drives based on last year's reputation and cuts some corners |
49 |
>and collects a huge bonus. Three years later everybody is dealing |
50 |
>with drive failures. Every vendor does it. That one Seagate model |
51 |
>was about the worst I've personally seen, but who knows what model is |
52 |
>being sold today that in three years will turn out to be just as bad, |
53 |
>and it could come from any of the vendors. |
54 |
> |
55 |
>I do try to look at the Backblaze stats for what they're worth, but I |
56 |
>think the general advice applies well. Make sure you have an |
57 |
>appropriate level of redundancy and backup strategy. Make sure to mix |
58 |
>models of drives in your RAIDs. The whole point of a RAID is to keep |
59 |
>the price down by increasing your tolerance of failures. |
60 |
> |
61 |
>And the whole NAS drive firmware thing really bugs me because they |
62 |
>charge a premium for a few bits in flash memory that should be |
63 |
>user-configurable anyway. Some of those drives have better vibration |
64 |
>resistance, which bugs me less. However, the bottom line is that they |
65 |
>probably will improve your RAID performance in the event of a failure, |
66 |
>and they probably do tend to cut the corners less on them. But who |
67 |
>knows, maybe the drive that fails next year will be the super-premium |
68 |
>edition. |
69 |
> |
70 |
>All of this goes to one of my drivers for using btrfs (and in this |
71 |
>regard zfs will do just as well). The checksumming means that I'm not |
72 |
>really trusting the drive or its firmware at all, and I scrub my |
73 |
>arrays weekly. |
74 |
> |
75 |
>Sorry you ended up with a bad drive... That model IS considerably |
76 |
>cheaper than most of the others... |
77 |
> |
78 |
>-- |
79 |
>Rich |
80 |
> |