To spin down or not to spin down?

[Ned]

I know this topic has been discussed before quite a bit and I am all for saving energy, reducing heat, noise, etc.  The downside however to spinning down drives is the super annoying delay you get when you say, go to play a movie off the HTPC and after you click play you see the hourglass and a nice long pause before the movie actually starts to play.  The delay can become even more pronounced on devices like the WD TV Live which doesn't seem to handle this as well as a PC does.  When the wife or kids want to watch a movie, they expect it to "play" right away the same way it worked when they could simply "put a disk in the machine" the old fashioned way... lol.

 

Anyway, aside from all of those pros/cons however, what I'd really like to get some expert opinions on are whether or not spinning down drives actually REDUCES wear and tear on the drives vs spinning all the time.  One would immediately think that spinning down would of course prevent wear however I've heard many strong arguments to the contrary... things like constantly spinning up and spinning down (even if it is just once or twice a day) wears out the drive heads faster from constantly being parked and unparked.  Same analogy as if you were to constantly start your car and then shut it off right away repeatedly vs just letting the engine run.  Less wear and tear on the starter that way.

 

Anyone care to weigh-in on this one?

[vl1969]

Not sure what do you mean the old way. When you put the disk in tje machine there is a conciderable delay,  much more than unraid ever have. Also with unraid there is no annoying trailers and copyright notice for 10-20 seconds before you can even get anywhere.

So tell the kids to suckit up and be good or else. Tell wife you love her but ther is mothing you can do.life is tough.

 

Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 4

 

 

[Ned]

I'll try to ignore those last two comments...

 

Anyone ELSE want to share their thoughts as to whether or not spinning down drives is better or worse for the long-term longevity of the drives themselves, or does it even make any difference at all?

[xtatdsm]

Aside from the pros and cons you mentioned to each, I would say that you should also consider the type of hard disks you have in there, some hard disks are happy with spinning up and down frequently without issues and some aren't, also some drivers can stand the 24/7 operation and some don't. Finally, this also depends on the usage, if you will be accessing the driver so ofter then I won't not bother spinning them down, if you only access the drivers once or twice a day, then maybe you should.

 

good luck

[dgaschk]

Spin down is a power saving feature. It has nothing to do with disk longevity.

[garycase]

First, the "wear and tear" of excessive spin-up/spin-down cycles is negligible on modern drives.    Drives are typically rated for at least 200,000 spin-ups (the "Start Stop Count" in a SMART report shows how many times your drives have done this).

 

If you spun up 100 times a day, it would take 2,000 days (over 5 years) to reach that number ... and if you set your spin-down timer to one hour, you couldn't spin more than 24 times a day ... so it'd take over 20 years to reach the rated spinup specification -- and that would only be if your did something to spin up the drive IMMEDIATELY after every spindown  .    In other words -- it's not a factor.

 

While consumer grade drives aren't designed for 24/7 transactional use (i.e. heads constantly busy), it's fine for them to be spinning 24/7 as long as they're adequately cooled.    The "green" drives (used to mean any ecologically sensitive low power drive)  are fine for this, since they generate less heat and are easier to keep cool.    And of course the NAS drives (WD Reds and Seagate NAS) are designed for 24/7 operation.

 

What spinning down DOES do is save a bit of power (and heat).    A typical modern drive draws ~ 1/2 watt when spun down; and about 6 watts when spinning but idle.    Figure roughly a 5w/disk savings.  So if you have 10 disks, that's about 50w of power savings when they're spun down.    Assuming they'd typically be spinning perhaps 4 hours a day, then in the other 20 hours you'd save 20 x 50w = 1kwh/day for a 10-drive system.    Perhaps $4/month at typical US utility rates.

 

Bottom line:  If you're okay with the small increase in operating cost, there's really no disadvantage to simply setting the system so your drives never spin down.    The fewer the drives in your system, the lower this incremental cost.    ... and the improved WAF is likely worth it 

 

[Ned]

Garycase, perfect summary... thank you!

[vl1969]

I'll try to ignore those last two comments...

 

Anyone ELSE want to share their thoughts as to whether or not spinning down drives is better or worse for the long-term longevity of the drives themselves, or does it even make any difference at all?

 

Hay Ned, no offense meant.

if my last comment were out of line, I am sorry.

[WeeboTech]

As Gary stated so well, modern drives today are not as sensitive to the spin up/spin down/keep spinning issue that people adhered to years ago.

 

That is. IF, (notice the big IF) the drives are cooled adequately. 

If your drives tend to get hot inside a case, all bets are off on this.

 

Also, as Gary mentioned, spinning down saves power and heat.

What we forget to consider, it also saves in power used to cool an area if you use air conditioning.

 

What you may want to consider is one of Joe L's scripts on the forum.

He had a script that monitors a media player's IP.

When the ping is successful, it keeps the drives spinning.

If not, it lets them spin down.

 

[garycase]

He had a script that monitors a media player's IP.

When the ping is successful, it keeps the drives spinning.

If not, it lets them spin down.

 

That's a nifty idea -- do you recall the name of the script?  (or better yet, have a link to it?)

 

Note that if you choose to do that, it's probably best to set the media player device to a static IP; or at least reserve an IP for it in your router, so it always gets the same IP.

[unevent]

Forgetting one small, but critical fact about some of the modern hard drives is that they are not rated like the drives of yesteryear.  Take for instance all the new Seagate consumer non-NAS drives with 2400 hour ratings.  Does not take a calculator to determine how many 24 hours blocks are in 2400 hours.  Tom's Hardware did a writeup on this last year or so and the conclusion is the non-NAS consumer drives, such as the Seagate with 2400 hour ratings are designed around power saving features of modern computers where they spin the drives down.  Take inventory of the types of drives used in the array and verify with the OEM datasheets before recommending not to spin down all non NAS-rated hard drives.

[WeeboTech]

He had a script that monitors a media player's IP.

When the ping is successful, it keeps the drives spinning.

If not, it lets them spin down.

 

That's a nifty idea -- do you recall the name of the script?  (or better yet, have a link to it?)

 

Note that if you choose to do that, it's probably best to set the media player device to a static IP; or at least reserve an IP for it in your router, so it always gets the same IP.

 

I took a stab at a search,

 

here is what I could find, I'm not sure it's the latest version.

I would suggest Asking Joe L

 

http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=1035.msg7004#msg7004

[WeeboTech]

Forgetting one small, but critical fact about some of the modern hard drives is that they are not rated like the drives of yesteryear.  Take for instance all the new Seagate consumer non-NAS drives with 2400 hour ratings.  Does not take a calculator to determine how many 24 hours blocks are in 2400 hours.  Tom's Hardware did a writeup on this last year or so and the conclusion is the non-NAS consumer drives, such as the Seagate with 2400 hour ratings are designed around power saving features of modern computers where they spin the drives down.  Take inventory of the types of drives used in the array and verify with the OEM datasheets before recommending not to spin down all non NAS-rated hard drives.

 

 

Has anyone heard of an instance for RMA denial based on the 2400 hour ratings?

It's feasible that a desktop could be on all the time. Mine are usually busy doing stuff.

[Ned]

I'll try to ignore those last two comments...

 

Anyone ELSE want to share their thoughts as to whether or not spinning down drives is better or worse for the long-term longevity of the drives themselves, or does it even make any difference at all?

 

Hay Ned, no offense meant.

if my last comment were out of line, I am sorry.

 

No worries...

[Ned]

He had a script that monitors a media player's IP.

When the ping is successful, it keeps the drives spinning.

If not, it lets them spin down.

 

That's a nifty idea -- do you recall the name of the script?  (or better yet, have a link to it?)

 

Note that if you choose to do that, it's probably best to set the media player device to a static IP; or at least reserve an IP for it in your router, so it always gets the same IP.

 

I took a stab at a search,

 

here is what I could find, I'm not sure it's the latest version.

I would suggest Asking Joe L

 

http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=1035.msg7004#msg7004

 

Very cool, I will have a look at this...  In the mean time I will let my disks spin away!  :-)

 

By the way, what do you guys consider to be a normal running temp for the average drive?  Is low to mid 30s (celcius) ok?  Ideally I'd like to see 20s but that is really hard to achieve unless I leave the cover completely off my case.

[unevent]

Forgetting one small, but critical fact about some of the modern hard drives is that they are not rated like the drives of yesteryear.  Take for instance all the new Seagate consumer non-NAS drives with 2400 hour ratings.  Does not take a calculator to determine how many 24 hours blocks are in 2400 hours.  Tom's Hardware did a writeup on this last year or so and the conclusion is the non-NAS consumer drives, such as the Seagate with 2400 hour ratings are designed around power saving features of modern computers where they spin the drives down.  Take inventory of the types of drives used in the array and verify with the OEM datasheets before recommending not to spin down all non NAS-rated hard drives.

 

 

Has anyone heard of an instance for RMA denial based on the 2400 hour ratings?

It's feasible that a desktop could be on all the time. Mine are usually busy doing stuff.

 

Personally, no.  Just stating what the data sheets say for these consumer drives.  I dug up some data on those numbers from data sheets for comparison:

 

Enterprise (ES.2)

MTBF: 1.2 million hrs.

AFR: 0.73%

Assumes 8,760 power on hours per year and 250 average start/stop cycles per year

 

Desktop (7200.11)

MTBF: 0.7 million hrs.

AFR: 0.34%

Assumes 2,400 power on hours per year and 10,000 average start/stop cycles per year

http://enterprise.media.seagate.com/2010/04/inside-it-storage/diving-into-mtbf-and-afr-storage-reliability-specs-explained/

 

and the article from Tom's Hardware: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/4tb-3tb-hdd,3183-5.html which briefly talks about it.

[dgaschk]

I've never heard of an HDD RMA being refused for any reason. You take a poll before the RMA is issued but the RMA is always given. There is no motivation for the consumer to return a good drive for a refurbished drive so there is no benefit to policing RMA's.

[jowi]

By the way, what do you guys consider to be a normal running temp for the average drive?  Is low to mid 30s (celcius) ok?  Ideally I'd like to see 20s but that is really hard to achieve unless I leave the cover completely off my case.

20s? That is the ambient temperature in the house here. Up to 30 in the summer. No way you can keep the drives at that when running, unless you use airco. Once mine are spinning from cold start, within seconds they report 35 to 40 celcius. When used normally, they go up to 45 celcius. If i run a parity check, 50 celcius, and according to hitachi that is within range of the normal operating temp of 50-65 celcius. So i only get worried when a drive shows 65 or more. People are focussed too much on temperature, the drives can handle more than you know. If they were running 24/7 at 50+ Celcius, that could cause more wear, but 90% of the time the disks are spinned down...

[garycase]

Low-to-mid 30's is fine.  My desktop has 5 WD Blacks in it, and they typically run in the upper 30's ... just checked and they're all between 35 and 38 at the moment.    My newest UnRAID server is set to not spin down (I don't plan to leave it that way, but have been using it a lot lately, and don't like the 10-15 second delays  ] ... and it's drives are all between 31 & 33 (WD Reds).    It hits 35-36 during parity checks.

 

I have NO concern about running any modern drive 24/7 as long as it's properly cooled -- and if it's in the low 30's that's definitely the case.    Drives rated for 24/7 operation are expected to be BUSY during that time (i.e. the heads are seeking; reads and writes are happening; etc.).    A drive that's spinning, but idle (no I/O activity) draws less power, and adds virtually no wear and tear to the drive.    NO manufacturer is going to deny an RMA for an in-warranty drive because of its power-on hours or spin-up time.    I agree that if you're going to be using it for an "always busy" activity, you should use a 24/7 rated drive ... my HTPC, for example, uses WD A/V drives (rated for 24/7 operation with 1,000,000 hrs MTBF), since it's busy a good portion of the time recording television content [most of which we never actually watch  ].

 

[JonathanM]

There is no motivation for the consumer to return a good drive for a refurbished drive

The drive companies have created a small motive by returning larger drives occasionally.

[garycase]

There is no motivation for the consumer to return a good drive for a refurbished drive

The drive companies have created a small motive by returning larger drives occasionally.

 

I doubt that's really a motive -- do you want to swap a good drive for a refurbished drive just to get a few extra GB?    That may sway some to RMA marginal drives that they've been holding on to ... but isn't likely to result in any significant influx of returns.    I did get a 2TB drive in return for a failed 1.5TB WD Black a while ago ... but I'm not likely to return any of the other 8 1.5TB units I have unless they actually fail 

[unevent]

I've never heard of an HDD RMA being refused for any reason. You take a poll before the RMA is issued but the RMA is always given. There is no motivation for the consumer to return a good drive for a refurbished drive so there is no benefit to policing RMA's.

 

Simply providing the facts so people can make up their own minds on how to treat their own hardware without being told to abuse it by default just because no one here has never been rejected RMA for exceeding the manufacturer limits.

[JonathanM]

There is no motivation for the consumer to return a good drive for a refurbished drive

The drive companies have created a small motive by returning larger drives occasionally.

I doubt that's really a motive -- do you want to swap a good drive for a refurbished drive just to get a few extra GB?    That may sway some to RMA marginal drives that they've been holding on to ... but isn't likely to result in any significant influx of returns.

I haven't done it, but the fact remains, some people may see it as a side benefit to an RMA process. That's why I said "small motive". If you can RMA a drive you no longer want because it's too small and possibly get a larger drive in return that you can use or sell, that's what I'd call a motivation. It's not worth my (or your) time, but there are plenty of people who might see it differently.

[WeeboTech]

I used to RMA my old maxtor drives when they were near the end of the warranty.

I would get a 'fresher' drive that would quickly be out of warranty but yet have a few years more usable life.

Granted, they were replaced with the same sized drive, but when needed, I always had a spare hard drive to do something if needed.  Need a quick linux distro to do some developing.. Bam, pop in one of those old spare 27~80GB RMA'ed drives.  It's different today when I can get a flash card capable of doing what I used to do with RMA'ed drives near EOL.  Still, If I could RMA a few of my 1TB drives for larger fresher drives.. I might consider it.

 

[garycase]

Still, If I could RMA a few of my 1TB drives for larger fresher drives.. I might consider it.

 

:)

 

At today's prices???    Hardly seems worth the hassle (not to mention the ethics of doing that).