Hey all,

 

Looking to add some storage to my current array, but I'm strapped for cash (like really strapped; student strapped). My endgame is to fill it out with WD Red's, but slowly. I could use some added storage right now, and I've been looking at other options, namely the White Label drives from eBay/Amazon.

 

My question is: would these WL drives be good parity drives? I'd pick up a 6TB (to replace my current 6TB WD Red in parity) and that should suit me for a long while. Looking at my array, though, I've got about 9m reads and 11m writes on my current parity, with comparable numbers on old 4TB and 5TB parity drives.

 

Are these high numbers normal?

 

I'm aware there was a thread about the WL drives a year or so ago, but it's been awhile and they seem to get good reviews elsewhere. Thoughts?

Of all the drives in your server the parity is the least important for data integrity, and the most important for speed of writes.

 

If the parity drive fails, you've lost nothing. If a data drive fails and the parity drive is ok, you've lost nothing. If your parity drive and another data drive fails at the same time, you've only lost 1 drive worth of data. If you 2 data drives and your parity drive is fine, you've still lost everything on the failed data drives. Increase fault tolerance by 1 failure if you add a second parity drive, but the principle remains the same.

 

Every write to the parity protected data drives involves a write to parity, so a slow parity drive will slow down writes across the board, but reads will still be normal.

 

tl:dr

 

Yes, a lower quality parity drive is fine.

Well hot dang, that was a rather informative post. Thank you!

 

Has anyone had any recent experience with WL drives?

Of all the drives in your server the parity is the least important for data integrity, and the most important for speed of writes.

 

If the parity drive fails, you've lost nothing. If a data drive fails and the parity drive is ok, you've lost nothing. If your parity drive and another data drive fails at the same time, you've only lost 1 drive worth of data. If you 2 data drives and your parity drive is fine, you've still lost everything on the failed data drives. Increase fault tolerance by 1 failure if you add a second parity drive, but the principle remains the same.

 

Every write to the parity protected data drives involves a write to parity, so a slow parity drive will slow down writes across the board, but reads will still be normal.

 

tl:dr

 

Yes, a lower quality parity drive is fine.

Going to have to disagree here...  IMO all drives are equally important be they data or parity.

 

Simply because the loss of any drive (or 2 drives if running dual parity) means that your array is going to be running in a degraded state until that drive is replaced.  Doesn't matter if the drive lost is data or parity.  If you lose one more you've lost data.

 

It would be something akin to putting 3 brand new tires on your car along with a bald tire.  Nothing says that the bald one is going to blow first forcing you to drive in a degrade state (with the doughnut), but the odds are that it will.

 

All that being said, everybody around here has differing views on what a "quality" drive is.  My self I've had nothing but trouble with WD's and zero trouble with Seagate (and zero trouble with Hitatchi at least before the acquisition)

Interesting reply.

 

I'm WD4life. They've always been good to me, I've always been very happy with their products, and I just can't stand Seagate for whatever reason. But hey, to each his own.

 

Like I said, I'm strapped for cash, but I'm gonna need to expand the array. For about half the price of a Red 6TB, I can get a White Label 6TB. Reviews on Amazon are really positive, with most saying their scrubbed WD Red's or WD Datacenter drives. I'm aware that I'm playing with fire here in case of a drive failure, but really I'm looking for a stop-gap, hence using it as my parity drive. Were the WL drive to fail, I'd just shut down the server and order a proper 6TB (hell, maybe even go into an RL store and pick one up that day).

 

I'm two years out from "disposable income," so I need to make ends meet until then, and sales for hard drives (notably the Red's) has been rough these past few holidays.

I have nothing but WD Red in my main server, and WD Red and Green in my backup. I did run some Seagates and Hitachis when I first built my first unRAID system. I just took whatever was cheaper at the time.

 

And I haven't actually had a drive failure in my unRAIDs though I have replaced many drives to upsize.

 

And I have had some drive failures over my many years of computing but didn't really take notes of what they were.

 

The differences between brands may be statistically significant, but any particular drive is probably good until it isn't.

Wasn't criticising a white label drive per se (ultimately they are manufactured by either WD or Seagate and just rebranded), but that the comment of

 

Yes, a lower quality parity drive is fine.

Wasn't criticising a white label drive per se (ultimately they are manufactured by either WD or Seagate and just rebranded), but that the comment of

 

Yes, a lower quality parity drive is fine.

I agree with you and jonathanm

http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-a-cartoon-man-sitting-on-a-fence-97418357.jpg[/img]

Recently, someone posted a SMART report for a White Label drive.  Looked fine, and looked just like a WD, same SMART programming.  I couldn't tell which color WD it was though.

Recently, someone posted a SMART report for a White Label drive.  Looked fine, and looked just like a WD, same SMART programming.  I couldn't tell which color WD it was though.

 

Some Amazon reviewers seem to indicate that they match it by firmware and specs or something similar. I've run across a couple reviews where people flat-out say "this is a ______ drive."

 

I think I'll take the plunge, though. Seems low-risk enough, given my situation.

Wasn't criticising a white label drive per se (ultimately they are manufactured by either WD or Seagate and just rebranded), but that the comment of

 

Yes, a lower quality parity drive is fine.

That comment was in the context of the OP's dilemma of whether to spend extra just to get a perceived quality increase. No more, no less. It's always been my contention that all drives in the parity protected array must have healthy stats, or they should be immediately replaced.

 

Once bitten, twice shy.

 

Lower quality doesn't mean I condone leaving failing drives in the array, just that it's not necessary to spend extra money. A new drive should have good health or it should be returned for one that does, whatever the "quality".

What's warranty like on WL Drives? Maybe get a Green drive for the better warranty?

Traditionally, the WL drives were WD RE4 drives.  Now the RE4 is EOL, I'd say they're more likely to be WD Gold or the end of the Re line.

That comment was in the context of the OP's dilemma of whether to spend extra just to get a perceived quality increase. No more, no less. It's always been my contention that all drives in the parity protected array must have healthy stats, or they should be immediately replaced.

 

Once bitten, twice shy.

 

Lower quality doesn't mean I condone leaving failing drives in the array, just that it's not necessary to spend extra money. A new drive should have good health or it should be returned for one that does, whatever the "quality".

 

The drive will be pre-cleared, naturally, which I believe should be a pretty thorough test of its array efficacy. If any problems show up, she goes back, I get another, and we try again. Heard good things about their support in that vein. Obviously all the necessary precautions will be taken, though. Again, if the drive craps out, the array goes down until the problem is fixed. That's probably the same with any drive, though, for me. Just a file server, nothing of which I need immediately.

 

What's warranty like on WL Drives? Maybe get a Green drive for the better warranty?

 

One year warranty from the seller. Which is acceptable. A Green 6TB is $210, versus $140 for a WL 6TB, and since frugality is my goal, the WL is the no-brainer.

 

Traditionally, the WL drives were WD RE4 drives.  Now the RE4 is EOL, I'd say they're more likely to be WD Gold or the end of the Re line.

 

I'll be aiming for the 5400rpm WL drive, so I think that precludes it from being an RE4, as I believe they're 7200rpm. Either way, though.