Hard Drives Made for RAID Use 201
An anonymous reader writes "Hard drive giant Western Digital recently released a very interesting product, hard drives designed to work in a RAID. The Caviar RE SATA 320 GB is an enterprise level drive without native command queueing and uses an SATA interface. In works better in RAID than other drives because of features like its time-limited error recovery and 32-bit CRC error checking, so it is an option when previously only SCSI drives would be considered."
Re:Slashdot: Stories Made For Ad Use (Score:2, Interesting)
About time (Score:5, Interesting)
SATA is the right technology, especially for controllers since each channel is dedicated. The only alternative is Firewire, and there are no native controller drives.
Re:Slashdot: Stories Made For Ad Use (Score:5, Interesting)
native command queueing (Score:4, Interesting)
"In sum, we must state that all Command Queuing enabled drives have an advantage over those that do not support this feature. At the same time, CPU load is also slightly higher when Command Queuing technologies are used. However, considering the performance of today's processors, the additional CPU load is a marginal factor."
Basically, you put some load on the processor for increased disk performance... Why not include it?
Re:About time (Score:3, Interesting)
I generally tend to agree with that, but as a guy running 8 200GB SATA drives on four controllers, I can tell you that the PCI bus gets saturated _way_ too quickly for my tastes.
looking for an inexpensive raid5 tower (Score:5, Interesting)
Same exact models:
http://www.raidweb.com/fb605fw.html [raidweb.com]
http://www.micronet.com/General/prodList.asp?CatI
http://www.firewiremax.com/fire-wire-1394-ilink/m
http://www.pcrush.com/prodspec.asp?ln=1&itemno=77
http://www.cooldrives.com/firewire-raid-5-enclosu
http://www.topmicrousa.com/combo-205.html [topmicrousa.com]
same internals, different enclosure:
http://fwdepot.com/thestore/product_info.php/prod
http://www.cooldrives.com/fii13toatade.html [cooldrives.com]
Everyone I call says they have them in stock. Then I ask them to check and they suddenly change their mind and say no it's not really in stock, (despite what their web page says) and they expect it in the generic "1-2 weeks". (retail-speak for "we don't know when it'll be in, please call back later")
Two of them actually told me they have yet to receive any of these units, so I don't think they've shipped from the manufacturer yet? (vaporware?)
Network RAID? (Score:5, Interesting)
Dumb Drives (Score:3, Interesting)
Am I correct, or are some RAID drive makers already doing this? Or have I just got all the controller:drive economics wrong?
Re:Slashdot: Stories Made For Ad Use (Score:3, Interesting)
Its like this quote from the article:
It's all bullshit. Sure, it might be better than another drive for use in a raid, but its not like people couldn't consider IDE drives in the past, and that this is some miracle cure.Just look at what RAID means - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks. Lots of people use cheapie IDE hard disks in RAID setups. We've got a 4-drive terrabyte raid. Why would we consider expensive drives when the whole idea is to use cheap drives in a redundant array?
Fuck the marketing departments. And fuck the PHBs who make their buying decisions based on them. Oh, right, the PHBs *ARE* getting fucked by the marketing departments. Sorry lads, carry on.
How about RAID on a hard drive itself (Score:0, Interesting)
Re:Network RAID? (Score:1, Interesting)
A side note. In roughly two years with this setup, I've had three various raid failures or reduced raid functionality (drives marked bad that were not bad or a corrupt raid config). None of these problem were the drives themselves. The raid setup caused more problems then it has prevented so use caution when trying to achieve a "cheap" raid setup. Next time it happens, I'll probably get rid of the raid setup and go back to four invididual drives and using rsync between two similar sized drives via a cron job.
Assuming you really need Gb speed and want raid 5, your setup done reliably can get expensive quick. Don't forget to look into your data recovery options if you decide on hardware raid and your card fails!
Re:About time (Score:3, Interesting)
For that matter even sharing
Re:Slashdot: Stories Made For Ad Use (Score:5, Interesting)
Most products (and especially electronics) have a failure rate that when plotted over time looks like a bathtub. There is a high initial failure rate (infant mortality) that drops over time to a base rate (the random failure rate described by MTBF), this low failure rate continues until one reaches the end of useful life of the product, when the failure rate rises once again as age and wear effects cause the device to fail.
Note that most extended warranties are designed by the seller to kick in after the early failure rate has droped, but expire before the end-of-life failures.
Re:earth to 11 year old kid (Score:5, Interesting)
Where's the review of how well it facilitates serving pages through Apache? Oh, that's replaced by "Look how neat the drive looks!"
Re: Go RAID! How real? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Western Digital is synonymous for crap (Score:3, Interesting)
All hard drive manufacturers have gone through cycles of poor quality and reliability. Maxtor, Seagate, IBM/Hitatchi (remember the "DeathStar") have all had the same problems. In all my years of repairing and building desktops, I can say I have had the most problems with Seagates and (the now owned by Maxtor) Quantum drives. If you ask someone else, they'll give you a different answer too.
This drive has a 5 year warranty. Most other Western Digital's have a 3 year warranty, even if you buy the OEMs (in most cases). And read the articles above for what 1 million hrs MTBF means!
Re:What would REALLY make the drive RAID firendly (Score:2, Interesting)
This allows for minor variations in replacement disc sizes, at the cost of wasting some disc space. (It'd make a 250 gb array instead of a 250.23 GB one.)
Re:Western Digital is synonymous for crap (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sal Cangeloso is a moron (Score:2, Interesting)
Why would I want to waste %25 of my volume's storage capacity to get better data security on something where I don't _care_ about data security? And no - raid-5 doesn't match raid-0 for speed even on reads, at least not in my linux software raid setup. No "probably" about it - I have a raid5 volume running on the same hd's, where I keep data I actually care about.
back to the testing lab and do it right! (Score:1, Interesting)
They review a RAID edition drive yet don't even test it in RAID5! Unless reviews are thorough how are we supposed to draw anything but the vaguest conclusions. This reviews testing set should have included all these combinations:
- software vs hardware RAID solution (including hybrid semi-hardware cards like RocketRaid 1820A)
- 2,4,8 drive tests for RAID0,1,1+0,5
- synthetic tests such as the one they used or HDTach or similar as well as real world tests such as a database benchmarch, file server test
i hate to rant but these thoughtless reviews really are a waste of time.