4 ms·
My anecdotal evidence, based on a fairly small (16TB) pool for personal use such as backups and media, is that the _Seagate_ SMR drives are fine. I've done mul
by seabrookmx 6y ago
My anecdotal evidence, based on a fairly small (16TB) pool for personal use such as backups and media, is that the _Seagate_ SMR drives are fine.
I've done multiple resilvers and they're definitely slower than conventional drives at that task, but the main issue people are seeing with WD drives is that in certain cases the drives take multiple seconds to respond to an ATA command, making the system think the drive is defective. The Seagate drives don't seem to suffer from this problem. There's lots of documentation out there on people using Seagate "Archive" drives in NAS's as well.. these were some of the earliest SMR drives and were on the market before the tech became more mainstream. Their results seem to align with what I'm seeing even though mine are branded "Barracuda Compute."
So while I wouldn't be using _any_ SMR drives for a production workload, I'm perfectly happy with the 8TB Seagate SMR drives I picked up for $185 CAD each for my home use.
- 65a 6y agoI ran a large array of 5TB Seagate SMR drives. Everything was fine until a disk failed, at which point the resilver took almost 24h. This was an uncomfortable window, but otherwise the array was fine, although write speeds were about 15-40MB/s in many cases.
- seabrookmx 6y agoYup. That window is exactly why I wouldn't want to run a setup like that in a production setting. But based on the reports of the WD drives, they are likely to never successfully resilver. Which is obviously much worse.