What brand of hard drive do you have?

[msand 5]

I just bought a Synology DS1813+ http://www.synology.com/en-global/products/overview/DS1813+, and stuffed 8 of the Seagate ST4000VN000 4TB drives in it http://www.seagate.com/au/en/internal-hard-drives/nas-drives/nas-hdd/?sku=ST4000VN000

 

So far, working very well.

[ThePaladinTech 22]

I have used over 30 of the Samsung drives. Best drives I ever bought, fast cool and still running. I've got 5 wd reds in my syno ds1512+ and eight in my tyan server (yes 8). BUT, I had to RMA eight of the 13, all doa! This led me to purchase Hitachi and Toshiba drives for three other 5 drive syno nases I built. Myself over the years (25+) I've had wd fail as often as seagates... But my luck with the 3tb reds was aweful.

 

Sent from my RM-820_nam_att_100 using Tapatalk

[Crestj 67]

I went off seagate drives whilst having the old sky boxes as they always went wrong.

 

WD all the way for me now

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[Vidmo 3]

I had been exclusively using Samsung prior to the buyout, but since the latest Samsung drives are really just Seagate why bother?

 

Media Server setup:

• SYS: Samsung 840 Pro 128GB
• Primary Array: (8) Seagate 4TB ST4000DM000 in a RAID 5 array connected to a LSI MegaRAID 9261-8i w/battery backup.
• Backup Array #1: (5) Seagate 4TB ST4000DM000 in a RAID 0 array in a Sans Digital 5-Bay eSATA Hardware Tower connected to HighPoint RocketRAID 644L
• Backup Array #2: (4) Seagate 3TB Barracuda 7200.14 ST3000DM001 in a RAID 0 array in a Sans Digital 4-Bay eSATA Hardware Tower connected to HighPoint RocketRAID 644L

I always try to have at least three copies of my data at any time.

 

HTPC(s) setup:

• SYS: Samsung 840 Pro 128GB
• Live and Recorded TV: Seagate Barracuda 2 TB ST2000DM001

[Logos302 86]

WD Red for storage on my server, Everything else is a hodge podge of drive brands.  

[saajan4u 79]

if I were you i'd stay away from seagate.. think they make the worst hdd..

dont know what happened to them but they used to be the best.

[Abobader 2947]

The 6TB start to look lovely tho from Seagate.

[Koleckai Silvestri 1150]

The 6TB start to look lovely tho from Seagate.

 

Seems to only be available to Enterprise Resellers so far. That means expensive and there isn't much data on reliability.

[CBers 6771]

We've just had installed hundreds of 42.3Tb solid state drives in our arrays at work !!

[Starkadius 219]

They seem to have a desktop version of the 6TB that is much "cheaper" than the enterprise 6TB version. Although I would not recommend desktop drives for Media Browser usage if you plan on running it 24/7.

 

I have been replacing my WD 2TB/3TB drives with Seagate NAS 4TB drives and they are the coolest in temperature that I have seen compared to desktop grade drives. The WD drives I have owned only lasted about 1 year before failing such as the WD Green drives. I also bought some Seagate 4TB Desktop drives but noticed they run really hot. I regret purchasing them and plan on swapping them out with NAS versions.

 

Basically if you plan on running a server don't buy desktop grade drives but instead go for enterprise level drives(very expensive) OR Seagate NAS/Western Digital Red drives. I mentioned this before but NAS/Red are in between desktop and enterprise level drives in terms of cost/reliability ratio. I think most people that have had bad experiences with Seagates are those that used the desktop drives and likewise those that had bad experiences with the WD drives used the desktop versions as well.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Starkadius

[bigjohn 656]

We've just had installed hundreds of 42.3Tb solid state drives in our arrays at work !!

 

42.3Tb SSDs?

[Koleckai Silvestri 1150]

They seem to have a desktop version of the 6TB that is much "cheaper" than the enterprise 6TB version. Although I would not recommend desktop drives for Media Browser usage if you plan on running it 24/7.

 

I have been replacing my WD 2TB/3TB drives with Seagate NAS 4TB drives and they are the coolest in temperature that I have seen compared to desktop grade drives. The WD drives I have owned only lasted about 1 year before failing such as the WD Green drives. I also bought some Seagate 4TB Desktop drives but noticed they run really hot. I regret purchasing them and plan on swapping them out with NAS versions.

 

Basically if you plan on running a server don't buy desktop grade drives but instead go for enterprise level drives(very expensive) OR Seagate NAS/Western Digital Red drives. I mentioned this before but NAS/Red are in between desktop and enterprise level drives in terms of cost/reliability ratio. I think most people that have had bad experiences with Seagates are those that used the desktop drives and likewise those that had bad experiences with the WD drives used the desktop versions as well.

 

I've never had a Seagate drive last more than 9 months. Western Digital lasts for years. At the prices above, I can get 8-12 TB of storage for the cost of one 6 TB drive.

[CBers 6771]

42.3Tb SSDs?

Yes. Large enterprise Hitachi Disk arrays.

[bigjohn 656]

Yes. Large enterprise Hitachi Disk arrays.

 

Cool, that ought to be some fast storage. We've been using Coraid arrays with their ATA-over-ethernet strategy. Fantastic stuff.

[Starkadius 219]

I've never had a Seagate drive last more than 9 months. Western Digital lasts for years. At the prices above, I can get 8-12 TB of storage for the cost of one 6 TB drive.

 

That is true, for the price of one 6TB Enterprise Seagate Drive I can purchase three Seagate NAS 4TB drives with a total of 12TB. If you look at the reviews of the Seagate NAS drives and compare them to the Seagate DESKTOP drives they are much more positive on the NAS drives overall. As I said my WD drives failed within a year but does that mean I will generalise and think that ALL WD drives will fail? No because I do recommend the WD Reds which are the equivalent of the Seagate NAS drives. These two drives(WD Red / Seagate NAS) are built for 24/7 applications and with a longer warranty than desktop grade drives.

 

When it comes to choosing a new drive I will not let the brand sway me, it will be either WD or Seagate as long as they are not desktop drives because these companies assign a higher level of reliability on NAS/Enterprise level drives and that is what the premium price is for. We can't compare the reliability of desktop drives versus those of higher priced ones because they use a different manufacturer process and different firmware. They go through more stress testing etc. Just recently(few months) WD released a new type of drive, the WD Purple which is "Built for always-on surveillance storage applications" and carries a 3 year warranty just like the Seagate NAS/WD Red. I am interested in trying this drive over the WD Red or Seagate NAS to see how well it performs on a server over the other drives regardless of my bad experience with WD Greens.

[moviefan 184]

Yes. Large enterprise Hitachi Disk arrays.

 

This has to be some sort of miscommunication.  I am familiar with Hitachi's line and they do not sell any such capacity SSDs.

 

They do have a 1.6TB module discussed here:  http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9233367/Hitachi_releases_new_1.6TB_flash_modules

 

And as the article discusses are coming out with 3.2 and 6.4 eventually.  But 42.3 of SSD can only created by a RAID configuration at this point.

[Koleckai Silvestri 1150]

A disk array is a RAID. Redundant Array of Independent Disks.

[Abobader 2947]

Seems to only be available to Enterprise Resellers so far. That means expensive and there isn't much data on reliability.

 

Yes, for home users, they are not much benefit if you count the price matters. My post regarding storage servers.

 

 

Cool, that ought to be some fast storage. We've been using Coraid arrays with their ATA-over-ethernet strategy. Fantastic stuff.

 

I am interesting in that, any good place to explain in simple depth matters that tech. issue for dusty oldie mind like me?

[bigjohn 656]

I am interesting in that, any good place to explain in simple depth matters that tech. issue for dusty oldie mind like me?

 

Abo, there is some limited information on their website (http://www.coraid.com) and some info out there about the technology on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATA_over_Ethernet

 

I'm sure there is lots of info out there, but I don't have it bookmarked or anything.

[moviefan 184]

A disk array is a RAID. Redundant Array of Independent Disks.

 

Thanks for that.  I had no idea!

 

Actually, I was commenting on the part where he said "We've just had installed hundreds of 42.3Tb solid state drives in our arrays at work !!"

 

Just couldn't figure out how to quote both posts quickly enough and thought it was pretty obvious.

 

Guess not though!  Will be sure to quote every part of the conversation next time so I don't have to have RAID explained to me again like I'm clueless...

Edited May 27, 2014 by moviefan

[Koleckai Silvestri 1150]

Thanks for that.  I had no idea!

 

Actually, I was commenting on the part where he said "We've just had installed hundreds of 42.3Tb solid state drives in our arrays at work !!"

 

Just couldn't figure out how to quote both posts quickly enough and thought it was pretty obvious.

 

Guess not though!  Will be sure to quote every part of the conversation next time so I don't have to have RAID explained to me again like I'm clueless...

 

Sorry, It seemed you were taking notion that he installed 42.3 TB of Hitachi Drives as if he only installed a single drive because of the capacity quotes. I'll remember to ignore your posts in the future. Have a good life.

 

This is what people get for trying to be helpful around here.

[Starkadius 219]

Thanks for that.  I had no idea!

 

Actually, I was commenting on the part where he said "We've just had installed hundreds of 42.3Tb solid state drives in our arrays at work !!"

 

Just couldn't figure out how to quote both posts quickly enough and thought it was pretty obvious.

 

Guess not though!  Will be sure to quote every part of the conversation next time so I don't have to have RAID explained to me again like I'm clueless...

 

I dont think anyone thought you were clueless. In a forum such as this one it is safer to be under the assumption that every user has little to no knowledge about certain technologies in order to help one another more efficiently. If I was a medical doctor and I go to some medical forum as a random user no one would know I was an expert of a certain question(for clarification purposes such as the one you were making) I was making unless I specifically said "by the way I am a doctor so don't bother defining medical terms to me please".

 

All I am saying is, try not to get offended if someone is trying to help you even with something that you think is obvious. None of us here are looking to offend one another

[Abobader 2947]

Good day,

 

 

Sorry, It seemed you were taking notion that he installed 42.3 TB of Hitachi Drives as if he only installed a single drive because of the capacity quotes. I'll remember to ignore your posts in the future. Have a good life.

 

This is what people get for trying to be helpful around here.

 

Around here is still good my friend, please keep doing what you been doing, you doing great.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for that.  I had no idea!

 

Actually, I was commenting on the part where he said "We've just had installed hundreds of 42.3Tb solid state drives in our arrays at work !!"

 

Just couldn't figure out how to quote both posts quickly enough and thought it was pretty obvious.

 

Guess not though!  Will be sure to quote every part of the conversation next time so I don't have to have RAID explained to me again like I'm clueless...

 

 

I could not say it better than my friend here:

 

 

I dont think anyone thought you were clueless. In a forum such as this one it is safer to be under the assumption that every user has little to no knowledge about certain technologies in order to help one another more efficiently. If I was a medical doctor and I go to some medical forum as a random user no one would know I was an expert of a certain question(for clarification purposes such as the one you were making) I was making unless I specifically said "by the way I am a doctor so don't bother defining medical terms to me please".

 

All I am saying is, try not to get offended if someone is trying to help you even with something that you think is obvious. None of us here are looking to offend one another

 

 

My best

[Vidmo 3]

I would not recommend desktop drives for Media Browser usage if you plan on running it 24/7.

 

I have been replacing my WD 2TB/3TB drives with Seagate NAS 4TB drives and they are the coolest in temperature that I have seen compared to desktop grade drives. The WD drives I have owned only lasted about 1 year before failing such as the WD Green drives. I also bought some Seagate 4TB Desktop drives but noticed they run really hot. I regret purchasing them and plan on swapping them out with NAS versions.

 

Basically if you plan on running a server don't buy desktop grade drives but instead go for enterprise level drives(very expensive) OR Seagate NAS/Western Digital Red drives. I mentioned this before but NAS/Red are in between desktop and enterprise level drives in terms of cost/reliability ratio. I think most people that have had bad experiences with Seagates are those that used the desktop drives and likewise those that had bad experiences with the WD drives used the desktop versions as well.

 

I would disagree with these assumptions. If you design your system with fault tolerance in mind it does not matter what the make and model of the drives are. My setup uses a hot spare for my main RAID array, If I loose a drive, no big deal. Plus I keep another spare drive always on hand. Even with the added costs of two more drives I'm still well below what it would cost to put in "NAS" drives in the first place.

 

Plus, if you have a good SATA RAID card (or NAS) they can compensate for the "desktop" firmware behavior. That and making sure you have a good UPS with power conditioning to migtigate any power issues.

 

Vidmo

[shaefurr 1337]

Shouldn't fault tolerance always matter when it comes to buying drives?

 

Seems a bit odd to me, getting a drive known to have a higher amount of failures just because the data is protected.  I guess if you have the cash to buy more drives whenever you need then it isn't a big deal I guess, but I know I wouldn't. I like the idea that when I buy a good drive I don't have to worry about it failing, buying a new drive and recovering the data, even if it is a RAID setup.

 

Just my opinion