night201 Posted February 14, 2010 Share Posted February 14, 2010 I'm using my Unraid right now for just basic storage (Docs, Photos, DVDs). When I start doing Bluray, I'll probably just put those data files on a faster drive in the array that I would get (not a green drive). For what I am doing, the speed is just fine right now. Quote Link to comment
neilt0 Posted February 14, 2010 Share Posted February 14, 2010 I'm using my Unraid right now for just basic storage (Docs, Photos, DVDs). When I start doing Bluray, I'll probably just put those data files on a faster drive in the array that I would get (not a green drive). For what I am doing, the speed is just fine right now. You won't find a drive that can't do 7MB/sec. My server has 18 drives, a mixture of Green and other drives. All 18 drives contain Blu-ray rips (1:1) and they all work fine. Quote Link to comment
ftp222 Posted February 18, 2010 Share Posted February 18, 2010 I stumbled upon an interesting document supposedly from Western Digital detailing the road-map for their drive line: http://multi.gnt.lt/Pages/brochures/Western%20Digital/Advanced%20Format%204K%20Nov2009.pdf Basically, it states the 2TB drives are the last of the EADS line and the EARS line is the replacement. Interestingly enough, they outline 2.5TB drives as being out in 1st quarter, 3TB drives in 2nd quarter and 4TB drives in 4th quarter of this year! I'm not overly optimistic, but I would love to see 4TB drives by the end of the year! Quote Link to comment
GaryMaster Posted February 18, 2010 Share Posted February 18, 2010 If some of you are still experiencing bad performance with your WD EARS drive, the advanced format EARS drives do not seem to align properly under unRAID. You have to jumper pins 7-8 on the drive before partitioning in unRAID to avoid significant performance hits from misalignment. Be warned that if you change the jumper after you have already placed data on the drive, it will be corrupted becase the address mapping will be offset by one sector by the drive itself. See before and after performance comparison here: http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=5076.msg49831#msg49831 Quote Link to comment
3560freak Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 I replaced my 2 clicking Seagate 1.5TB drives that I just bought 1.5 months ago to build my unraid (1 for parity and 1 for data) with 2 WD 1.5TB EARS and so far no problems. I've been running 1 as the parity for about a week now and then just swapped out the data drive with the 2nd drive. Everything rebuilt and parity check is ok. Everything seems fine so far on my end. It's much better not hearing any clicking every minute between both of the Seagates that I had, not to mention all the pauses I used to get during read and writes. So those Seagates are no good? Fry's has them on sale for $99 this week and I was planning on picking up 4 Quote Link to comment
GaryMaster Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 So those Seagates are no good? Fry's has them on sale for $99 this week and I was planning on picking up 4 I've been running a pair of the Seagate ST31500341AS since they came out without incident. There were a number of issues reported with early firmware releases, but that should not be a factor for drives purchased now (I upgraded my firmware because mine were early production samples). These particular Seagates are actually fast drives, putting in about 98-100MB/s average read and write throughput. The WD EARS series is only around 85MB/s. I'm not sure what to think right now in regard to hard drive reliability - all of the manufacturers seem to be putting out a lot of DOA drives in these large capacity formats. I buy quite a few and I have not had a bad drive from any of the suppliers recently. If you believe the reviews, Samsung seems to be on top in this category. Quote Link to comment
night201 Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 I replaced my 2 clicking Seagate 1.5TB drives that I just bought 1.5 months ago to build my unraid (1 for parity and 1 for data) with 2 WD 1.5TB EARS and so far no problems. I've been running 1 as the parity for about a week now and then just swapped out the data drive with the 2nd drive. Everything rebuilt and parity check is ok. Everything seems fine so far on my end. It's much better not hearing any clicking every minute between both of the Seagates that I had, not to mention all the pauses I used to get during read and writes. So those Seagates are no good? Fry's has them on sale for $99 this week and I was planning on picking up 4 I wouldn't get them again. I don't trust them. Quote Link to comment
Rizlaw Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 Many users are reporting a huge performance loss over EADS. Who and where...... without a cite, it is just hearsay. I'm afraid it's not "hearsay". http://www.osnews.com/story/22872/Linux_Not_Fully_Prepared_for_4096-Byte_Sector_Hard_Drives Good article on 4k sectors: http://lwn.net/Articles/322777/ Latest info on 4K: http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Kernel-Log-Linux-and-hard-disks-with-4-KByte-sectors-939523.html More info (with solutions) from Western Digital Community website: http://community.wdc.com/t5/Desktop/Problem-with-WD-Advanced-Format-drive-in-LINUX-WD15EARS/td-p/6395 http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Kernel-Log-Linux-and-hard-disks-with-4-KByte-sectors-939523.html Quote Link to comment
PeterB Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 I haven't tested it, but I understand that gparted 0.6.0 accomodates the 'Advanced Format' drives, and resolves the performance issue. Quote Link to comment
BRiT Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 I haven't tested it, but I understand that gparted 0.6.0 accomodates the 'Advanced Format' drives, and resolves the performance issue. That won't help with unRAID, since unRAID expects the partition to start on sector 63. Quote Link to comment
PeterB Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 I haven't tested it, but I understand that gparted 0.6.0 accomodates the 'Advanced Format' drives, and resolves the performance issue. That won't help with unRAID, since unRAID expects the partition to start on sector 63. Ah, okay. I hadn't realised that restriction was built in! 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.