4 ms·
Not 100% sure about SMR situation, but granted, Seagate was never not technological front runner nor untrustworthy nor unfaithful company; their 5k4 drives were
by numpad0 1y ago
Not 100% sure about SMR situation, but granted, Seagate was never not technological front runner nor untrustworthy nor unfaithful company; their 5k4 drives were always more cost effective than anybody and they're the first to ship HAMR drives right now as well. It's __JUST__ that the MTBF was always statistically shorter.
- kstrauser 1y agoWhich is a significant “just”, to be sure! But in my experience, if an Iron Wolf survives a RAID rebuild, it’s probably going to work for many more years. I’ve had 3 WD Reds claim to keep working, and still pass their SMART short and long tests, but tank in performance. I’d see the RAID usage graphs and all drives would be at like 5% IO utilization while the Red was pegged at 100% 24/7. The whole volume would be slow as it waited for the dying-but-lying Red to commit its writes. In each case, I yanked the Red and saw volume wait times drop back down to the baseline, then swapped in an Iron Wolf. Fool me thrice, shame on all of us. I won’t be fooled a 4th time. I’m not a Seagate fanboy. There’s an HGST drive in my home NAS that’s been rocking along for several years. There are a number of brands I’d use before settling for WD again. However, I’d make sure WD hadn’t bought them out first.