tucansam Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 There's just one thing you shouldn't do with them, and that's two simultaneous writes, e.g. parity rebuild AND write new data, other than that, I love them. I should add, some of my media files are over 100GB each and no issues. Can you explain why this is? I am considering consolidating two servers into one using these drives, but suspending all writes to the array during the monthly parity check would be a problem, especially given how long an 8x8TB array would probably take to do the check.... Also, what if two users are writing to the array at the same time, and happen to be hitting the same disk? Thanks. Quote Link to comment
garycase Posted September 30, 2016 Author Share Posted September 30, 2016 Simultaneous writes aren't, per se, a problem => but they can increase the likelihood of data being routed through the persisent cache which may otherwise be written directly to a zone. This will somewhat slow down the writes -- but probably not enough to be an issue as long as you don't do so many of them that the persistent cache gets full. There's been enough testing of this on various UnRAID systems that it seems this is VERY unlikely. Quote Link to comment
garycase Posted September 30, 2016 Author Share Posted September 30, 2016 ... especially given how long an 8x8TB array would probably take to do the check.. You probably already know this, but just in case: A parity check with an 8TB parity drive will indeed take a long time ... but it won't be appreciably longer with 8 drives than it would be with any other number of drives => it has to go through 8TB no matter what. However, if the other drives were smaller, it would actually take LONGER, since for each different size drive it will slow down a good bit as it goes through the inner cylinders on the different size drives. The more different sizes involved, the longer it will take. But if all the drives are 8TB, it doesn't make much difference whether you have 2 of them, 8 of them, or 20 of them. Quote Link to comment
wgstarks Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 Anyone know what the difference is between the ST8000VN0002 and the ST8000AS000? I know the VN0002 is being marketed as an NAS drive. Just wondering if it's really worth the extra $50.00? Quote Link to comment
c3 Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 Anyone know what the difference is between the ST8000VN0002 and the ST8000AS000? I know the VN0002 is being marketed as an NAS drive. Just wondering if it's really worth the extra $50.00? The IronWolf (ST8000VN0002) is not SMR (Shingled), thus very different. Is it worth $50 is dependent on workload, etc. Quote Link to comment
wgstarks Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 Anyone know what the difference is between the ST8000VN0002 and the ST8000AS000? I know the VN0002 is being marketed as an NAS drive. Just wondering if it's really worth the extra $50.00? The IronWolf (ST8000VN0002) is not SMR (Shingled), thus very different. Is it worth $50 is dependent on workload, etc. Thanks. Think I'll save the money. Quote Link to comment
thegizzard Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 I saw a review that suggested that these were not durable for 24/7 nas use. Does anyone think these won't last in unRAID as parity and/or data disks? Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment
garycase Posted October 4, 2016 Author Share Posted October 4, 2016 There are a LOT of folks using them in UnRAID ... with over a year and a half of usage so far, and I've not seen any indications on this forum that they're having any reliability issues. Quote Link to comment
methanoid Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 Apart from MY 3 dead drives... Parity check killed drives on two separate occasions.. But apart from me, everyone else seems fine... Quote Link to comment
thegizzard Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 Parity check killed my first drive. The second was fine. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment
garycase Posted October 4, 2016 Author Share Posted October 4, 2016 Seems there have indeed been few issues Quote Link to comment
danioj Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 Parity check killed my first drive. The second was fine. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk Apart from MY 3 dead drives... Parity check killed drives on two separate occasions.. But apart from me, everyone else seems fine... Are you both confirming that following testing of the drive for infant mortality things were fine and then a Parity Check killed the drive? Can you post the evidence to support these claims we can view? I only ask as I assume you would have collected this to support your RMA claim and it is of benefit to the community. As for reliability I have empirical evidence that these drives in good health are indeed an excellent choice for use with unRAID. I have these running in my Backup Server - an all Seagate Shingled 8TB drive array (single Parity). Running alongside my Main Server - an all WD Red 3TB drive array + 1 x 8TB data and 1 8TB Data (Single Parity). This setup has been running PERFECT 24x7 now for ~: 1y, 3m, 24d, 8h In addition to the evidence I collected at the beginning of this journey (please read initial posts) here is some in life data: Parity History for Backup Server: 2016-10-01, 19:04:53 19 hr, 4 min, 52 sec 116.5 MB/s OK 2016-09-21, 01:07:39 23 hr, 14 min, 18 sec 95.6 MB/s OK Aug, 01, 16:25:46 16 hr, 25 min, 42 sec 135.3 MB/s OK Jul, 01, 15:51:40 15 hr, 51 min, 37 sec 140.1 MB/s OK Jun, 01, 17:47:45 17 hr, 47 min, 41 sec 124.9 MB/s OK May, 01, 18:53:44 18 hr, 53 min, 40 sec 117.6 MB/s OK Apr, 05, 12:47:54 16 hr, 15 min, 19 sec 136.7 MB/s OK Apr, 03, 08:02:32 16 hr, 39 min, 57 sec 133.4 MB/s OK Mar, 01, 15:55:59 15 hr, 55 min, 55 sec 139.5 MB/s OK Feb, 10, 01:36:07 1 day, 3 hr, 57 min, 1 sec Parity History for Main Server: 2016-10-01, 20:18:02 19 hr, 48 min, 1 sec 112.3 MB/s Aug, 01, 18:47:49 18 hr, 17 min, 47 sec 121.5 MB/s Jun, 01, 19:29:00 18 hr, 58 min, 56 sec 117.1 MB/s May, 01, 23:10:57 22 hr, 40 min, 52 sec 98.0 MB/s Apr, 05, 15:26:53 18 hr, 54 min, 20 sec 117.6 MB/s Apr, 01, 19:39:23 19 hr, 9 min, 19 sec 116.0 MB/s Mar, 01, 19:57:13 19 hr, 27 min, 9 sec 114.3 MB/s Feb, 01, 18:44:41 18 hr, 14 min, 36 sec There are a few spikes due to load. I run my daily backups at 3am (3 hours after a Parity Check has begun) and I don't stop the backups when this Check is running. My backup is going from Main -> Backup Server via a SyncBack managed compare, copy then verify. I have had 2 instances of a need for rebuilding a drive over the year in this setup: 3TB drive on Main Server: 9 hr, 24 min, 40 sec 8TB drive on Backup Server: 15 hr, 59 min, 10 sec Nothing wrong here. 1 Quote Link to comment
interwebtech Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 I have had two infant mortalities during preclears. Once in the array, no problems as long as you understand the speed bumps on large writes. I just set Mover to run late late at night when no one is around. Quote Link to comment
thegizzard Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 I am happy with my 8tb shingle. I meant to say PRECLEAR killed my first 8tb drive. I DOA'd it then the replacement worked fine. I've only had it for a month tho. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment
danioj Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 I have had two infant mortalities during preclears. Once in the array, no problems as long as you understand the speed bumps on large writes. I just set Mover to run late late at night when no one is around. In what scanario have you experienced the speed bumps? Size of file(s), Array configuration etc? I ask only because, no matter what I do I cannot replicate it. Quote Link to comment
danioj Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 I am happy with my 8tb shingle. I meant to say PRECLEAR killed my first 8tb drive. I DOA'd it then the replacement worked fine. I've only had it for a month tho. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk That makes sense, thanks for posting a clarification. Quote Link to comment
pras1011 Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 I have had my 8tbs for over a year and never had problems. I too have write speed issues on large files (20gb+) but nothing to worry about. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment
danioj Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 I have had my 8tbs for over a year and never had problems. I too have write speed issues on large files (20gb+) but nothing to worry about. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Really?? What do you mean "write issue"? I just tried again on my Backup Server. Files in 10GB increments from 10GB up to 200GB via MC on the console. Disk to disk copy. No material speed variance what so ever!? Same as I asked Interwebtech, can you describe exactly what you do to get this "issue". Like I mentioned above I cannot replicate it. No matter what size file I use (as my previous results have indicated), there seems to be no performance impact at all. I really want to replicate this. There is nothing special about my setup at all. Quote Link to comment
methanoid Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 It's been a while since I was using those drives. Might not have even been under unRAID but FlexRAID... but I know the 1st Parity check killed them. The other drives were pretty full so no doubt the parity run was a heavy run with continual writing. Have you done a test with yours that involves writing say 200GB in one chunk to the array, not to a cache drive? I may have just had 1st batch problems as they were early drives! Quote Link to comment
danioj Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 It's been a while since I was using those drives. Might not have even been under unRAID but FlexRAID... but I know the 1st Parity check killed them. The other drives were pretty full so no doubt the parity run was a heavy run with continual writing. Have you done a test with yours that involves writing say 200GB in one chunk to the array, not to a cache drive? I may have just had 1st batch problems as they were early drives! Yes, thats what my test above was. No Cache. Disk to Disk. No slow down irrespective of file size above 10GB onwards .... Quote Link to comment
interwebtech Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 Same as I asked Interwebtech, can you describe exactly what you do to get this "issue". ... Dealing with parity & disk swaps for next few days. Once done, if I run across it again I will post particulars. Quote Link to comment
thegizzard Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 Just added my second 8tb shingle. PRECLEAR flawless, operating perfectly. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment
kode54 Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 You'd have to be nuts to use a shingled drive in an array like this. Figure 20GB of the drive is dedicated write cache. Every time sustained writes fill that up, the drive locks in a busy cycle until it flushes the cache in a slow stream of read-modify-write cycles to the shingled storage area. Or you could wait for someone to invent a desktop file system and operating system that can handle this at the host level. Probably won't happen any time in the next decade for consumer or prosumer accessible software. Just because you can do it, doesn't mean that you necessarily should. Quote Link to comment
ashman70 Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 I have had several of these in my 105TB server for over 9 months without issues. I've had other drives fail and I've replaced them and I run parity checks once a month. They are great value for the money in my opinion. Quote Link to comment
thegizzard Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 You'd have to be nuts to use a shingled drive in an array like this. Figure 20GB of the drive is dedicated write cache. Every time sustained writes fill that up, the drive locks in a busy cycle until it flushes the cache in a slow stream of read-modify-write cycles to the shingled storage area. Or you could wait for someone to invent a desktop file system and operating system that can handle this at the host level. Probably won't happen any time in the next decade for consumer or prosumer accessible software. Just because you can do it, doesn't mean that you necessarily should. Is your point that it would be unacceptably slow? The purpose of this thread is to document how this setup performs in actual practice. I have two in my unRAID and have no performance difference vs. the NAS drives I have been running for years. If there were actual performance issues I would expect to read about them right here. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.