omkar Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Both of these drives are currently $149.99 at Amazon. Free shipping, and no tax for some of us makes this a decent deal. Which one to get for unRAID purposes though? Link to comment
Rajahal Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Both are fine for unRAID, but for simplicity's sake I would recommend the EADS. It will work out of the box. The EARS requires a jumper set to pins 7 and 8, and the jumper is most likely not included - you would have to provide it yourself. Link to comment
mjstumpf Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 I've read reports that the EARS 64mb cache makes a large difference. Putting a jumper on a drive, when the bag and drive both say to do it (and how to do it) is not rocket science. Link to comment
purko Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Both are fine for unRAID, but I would recommend the EARS. When unRAID gets native support for the new 4k format, you'll regret getting the EADS when you could have gotten the EARS for the same price. Link to comment
Rajahal Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 I've read reports that the EARS 64mb cache makes a large difference. If you read and write small files often, then this is true. However, most unRAID users populate their servers with large media files - in this scenario, the larger cache makes little difference. Purko makes a good point, purchasing the EARS is more 'forward thinking'. If I were to buy one, I would get the EARS as well, especially since I have a stash of spare jumpers just sitting around. However, for the average person out in cyberspace, not knowing their technical prowess or the status of their jumper ownership, I would recommend the EADS because it will 'just work'. Having dealt with jumper issues on Samsung drives before, I think it is very poor form for WD or any hard drive manufacturer to require or recommend using a jumper but not include one in the package. Perhaps a jumper is included with the retail package, I don't know. Link to comment
Rajahal Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Compliment accepted I knew that Philosophy degree would come in handy some day... Link to comment
mariajames Posted April 9, 2010 Share Posted April 9, 2010 i was sure that Philosophy degree would come in handy some day... soon and it happen ..... links of london sale links of london sale links of london sale links of london jewelry Link to comment
Killer_B Posted April 9, 2010 Share Posted April 9, 2010 Both are fine for unRAID, but I would recommend the EARS. When unRAID gets native support for the new 4k format, you'll regret getting the EADS when you could have gotten the EARS for the same price. I wonder, when will the kernel will have the native support included? Link to comment
BRiT Posted April 9, 2010 Share Posted April 9, 2010 It's not Kernel support that's needed. It's already supported. It's unRAID support that's needed. To get full performance out of the drive, the starting sector of the partition needs to be at 64. Currently it's at 63. Link to comment
Joe L. Posted April 9, 2010 Share Posted April 9, 2010 It's not Kernel support that's needed. It's already supported. It's unRAID support that's needed. To get full performance out of the drive, the starting sector of the partition needs to be at 64. Currently it's at 63. Exactly, and unRAID's choice to start the partition on sector 63 was make it be most backward compatible with Microsoft partitioning tools if attempting to mount it in a windows environment, as historically most all of MicroSoft partitions started on sector 63. The drive will still work, regardless of the jumper, but it will be improved a bit with it. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.