Results 1 to 25 of 30
-
02-09-2013, 10:06 AM #1Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Posts
- 3,700
1TB : TOSHIBA DT01ACA100 or Seagate ST1000DM003 ?
Hi,
i want to buy four hardware to do centos software raid 10 on x9scl+-f/e3 1230,
i find the two HDD,do you have any experience with them ?
because their cache are 32MB and 64MB,
im not sure if it is very important ?
thanx
-
02-09-2013, 10:12 AM #2Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
- Location
- Miami Beach, Florida
- Posts
- 661
I only use Seagate hard drives on all my servers. I have only had 1 fail since 2007, that failed slowly and gave me error messages for a long time, so I replaced it before any data was ever lost.
PS. I have over 40 servers in the data center.Nexxterra.com Web Services
MassiveServers.com Web Hosting, Dedicated servers and Domain Registration - Miami, Florida, USA
BuyAWebName.com Domain name registration
-
02-09-2013, 11:51 AM #3Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Location
- Atlanta, GA
- Posts
- 3,872
well, neither is exactly ideal choice because they are sill desktop drives that are not rated for 24x7 production.
try seagate 1TB constellation CS (ST1000NC001) which can be had for under $100:
http://www.ecost.com/p/Seagate-Hard-...67~pdp.iaddjjg
it has SATA-III 6G/s 7200rpm 64M buffer. sure, it costs $20-$25 more, but at least it comes with 3-year Seagage warranty, let alone it's rated for 24x7 usage on production server.
WD 1TB RE4 is another choice for 24x7 production even if you don't use them on hardware RAID card. however, it's SATA-II 3G/s based, and it costs in $115 range, but it does have 5-year warranty from WD.Last edited by cwl@apaqdigital; 02-09-2013 at 12:04 PM.
-
02-09-2013, 06:36 PM #4Web Hosting Evangelist
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
- Location
- Manchester, UK
- Posts
- 451
██ AboveClouds - UK Based Company
██ Self Managed Scalable, On-demand Cloud Hosting with a personal touch ❤
-
02-09-2013, 07:45 PM #5Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Posts
- 3,700
the x9scl+-f has only SATA-II 3G/s,if i buy SATA-III 6G/s HDD,does it have any benefit ? thanx
-
02-09-2013, 10:22 PM #6Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Posts
- 446
-
02-10-2013, 11:59 AM #7Randy
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Location
- Ashburn VA, San Diego CA
- Posts
- 4,615
I'd go for the bigger cache if all else equal. 6G vs 3G doesn't matter for spin disk. In the end, I think reliability/warranty is the most important for spin disks.
Fast Serv Networks, LLC | AS29889 | DDOS Protected | Managed Cloud, Streaming, Dedicated Servers, Colo by-the-U
Since 2003 - Ashburn VA + San Diego CA Datacenters
-
02-10-2013, 01:30 PM #8Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Location
- Atlanta, GA
- Posts
- 3,872
-
02-10-2013, 04:46 PM #9THE Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2003
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Posts
- 6,957
We hadn't really seen a convincing reason to switch to all Enterprise drives until everyone started playing games with warranties. I hate that they did it, but it worked...
I can understand covering your ass in saying "not rated for 24/7 use" but we've really seen no noticeable difference in reliability.Karl Zimmerman - Founder & CEO of Steadfast
VMware Virtual Data Center Platform
karl @ steadfast.net - Sales/Support: 312-602-2689
Cloud Hosting, Managed Dedicated Servers, Chicago Colocation, and New Jersey Colocation
-
02-11-2013, 10:47 AM #10Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Location
- Atlanta, GA
- Posts
- 3,872
from the point of view of "true" failure rate (crash head/motor making noises; no power-on; bad sectors...etc, but "kicked-off" bay HW RAID card doesn't count), count me in with your comment about no real difference in reliability between enterprise drives and desktop drives. actually we saw more failed enterprise sata drives than desktop drives in the same given period.
however, the "TLER" (time limited error recovery) or similar features does make substantial difference when you deal with hardware array. you know we install hundreds of hardware arrays on yearly basis, and I can't begin to tell you the shear numbers of incidents that a HW RAID card kicked a non-enterprise drive off array due to the TLER, and array got degraded because of it, yet if you tested the supposedly "bad" drive by manufacturer's own diagnostic software outside the array, it would passed all tests, short scan, long scan, write-0 the whole drive...etc with flying colors. fine, "degraded" array means your data is not lost, but after you replace the "bad" desktop drive, which is not "really" bad confirmed by outside tests, the annoying-to- -hell array re-sync would start and every one on the server stars to be slowed to crawl! all for what? well, all because the desktop drive does not have TLER or similar on it so that it triggered this chain of event!
we had one extreme case associated with one of our long-time clients. against my better advice, they install 6x 2.5" SATA desktop drives to have HW RAID-10 installed on dozens of 12 VPS nodes. guess what happened, out of the 72 drives, more than 70% of them tagged by RAID card as "BAD", yet only 10% of them had true actual hardware faults such as bad sectors, and 90% of them tested all good outside the HW array. all because of what? they don't have TLER or similar built-in so that RAID cards just kicked them off like buzzing flies. imagine all the labor, shipping back-n-forth for RMA, DC remote hand charges, and all the dreadful downtime on busy VPS nodes...some incidents even had 2+ drives got kicked off so that arrays is totally demised and VPS needed to be rescued by R1soft which took a day or two. then, as soon as they used enterprise-grade SATA drives with TLER to replace the desktop drives, all these degraded-array issues got stopped cold and disappeared fast.
this real-life story goes to tell everyone that saving some bucks upfront by using desktop drives on hardware array is just not worth it, not because they aren't rated for 24x7, not because they aren't or are as reliable as "enterprise" drives, but only because they don't have TLER or similar! you could or would (if you think Mr. Murphy would never ring your bell!) be very regretted later on.
sorry, Karl and OP, just ranting here! I am fully aware that ttgt want to use software raid where desktop drives could be just dandy with no worry to have such headaches caused by hardware RAID array.
-
02-11-2013, 10:48 AM #11Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2004
- Posts
- 972
Hello,
We have hundreds of ES.2 and Constellation ES 3,5" disks, at most we've seen 3-4 failures. The Toshiba is a very good disk, and we will be populating the next MSA60 with these. Please remember that the DT01ACA100 is a copy of the Hitachi 7K1000.D, the 7K1000 being a legendary line of SATA HD's.
Therefore, to answer your question, if I needed to choose between a Desktop
ST1000DM003 and a Desktop DT01ACA100 (7K1000.D with a Toshiba Label), I would definitely choose the Toshiba.
I still have at least 40 7K1000's (original 5 platter iteration) and all have survived an aircon destabilization incident in Easynet in 2008 (SMART history on them shows they achieved and survived through 72C) - and they are all still in good order.
BTW, if you can, take the SAS versions of these instead, it's worth the 10-15% premium as you can later intermix them with other high performance 10/15K SAS disks on the same controller with no performance penalty.EuroVPS VPS Hosting - Virtual Private Servers | Web Hosting | Dedicated Servers
Providing Reliable Plesk and cPanel Servers since 2004, now offering low priced Xen & VMware VPS in Amsterdam
UK +44.203.355.6681 / Amsterdam +31.208.202.120
-
02-11-2013, 10:59 AM #12Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Posts
- 3,700
-
02-11-2013, 11:00 AM #13Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Posts
- 3,700
-
02-11-2013, 11:16 AM #14Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Location
- Atlanta, GA
- Posts
- 3,872
I wouldn't worry too much, was it me! unless you DO want longer warranty like Karl said.
you know, we installed a few hundreds of Seagate barracuda 7200.14 (the "DM" line) drives from 1TB to 3TB in last 12 months on low-end non-HW-raid boxes, and amazingly, or unexpectedly to say the least, only one SINGLE RMA request from the field. can't say the same thing about WD RE4 nor Seagate Constellation.
however, it's possible that all things could turn hellish after 1-year in 24x7 production because no 7200.14 has been in service over 12 months so that no one can really say with abolute certainty that it won't happen based on hard numbers from the fields. that would be pretty much the ONLY factor (warranty factor) you want to consider desktop drives v enterprise drives.
the 7200.14 are really flying! simple 10GB dd write 0 test often exceed 200M/s write, that's really outstanding against the 120M-150M/s from WD black/RE4. don't really know about toshiba drives because we haven't installed them before.
-
02-12-2013, 09:42 AM #15Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Posts
- 3,700
do you suggest me use all the same HDD for one server? or mix different brands of HDD ? because is it possible that all the same brand HDD take fail within the same month after months... thanx
-
02-12-2013, 10:04 AM #16Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Location
- Atlanta, GA
- Posts
- 3,872
-
02-12-2013, 11:52 AM #17Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2004
- Posts
- 972
Never mix different make/model within an array
EuroVPS VPS Hosting - Virtual Private Servers | Web Hosting | Dedicated Servers
Providing Reliable Plesk and cPanel Servers since 2004, now offering low priced Xen & VMware VPS in Amsterdam
UK +44.203.355.6681 / Amsterdam +31.208.202.120
-
02-12-2013, 11:57 AM #18Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Posts
- 446
-
02-12-2013, 12:03 PM #19Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Posts
- 3,700
-
02-12-2013, 12:21 PM #20Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Posts
- 446
-
02-12-2013, 01:26 PM #21Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Posts
- 555
Use the Hitachi (toshiba) drive for sure. Toshiba re-brands HGST/hitachi drives.
Seagate drives suck... especially their desktop versions. I have seen thousands of them fail. At a huge web-hosting company I used to work for doesn't even bother RMA'ing them anymore because of the failure rate (especially on the replacements).
Hitachi on the other hand has had an *excelent* track record.
We have a bunch Of ZFS machines. Quite a few are Sun xfire 4500's that have 48 hitachi drives. I checked 7-8 of these machines and some have ultrastar disks and some have deskstar ones. Anyway they were 1000-2000 days powered on (so some running over 5 years) and of the 8 machines only one machine had a single drive failure. All the rest were the original drive with near perfect stats.
When checking a bunch of random seagate machines that are 24 disk machines I see commonly 4-10 drive failures over the life of the machine which is under 1300 days powered on and almost all the drives have re-allocated or pending sectors and general bad disk health. The difference between the health of the drives is chocolate and ****.
-
02-12-2013, 01:46 PM #22Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Posts
- 3,700
Hi,houkouonchi,so, do you recommend Toshiba DT01ACA100 than Seagate ST1000DM003 ? thanx
-
02-12-2013, 02:44 PM #23Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Posts
- 555
Yes its really a hitachi drive because toshiba bought HGST desktop drives. A lot of people who get them they even report as the hitachi model:
HDS721010DLE630
Here is an example of hitachi deskstars in a solaris box.. almost 2000 days on. Re-alloc = re-allocated sectors, Pend = pending sectors PC = powercycles and Dayson is how many days its been running (the main things I care about from smart):
Code:Solaris SATA System Detected zpool: pool device Model Number/Firmware Re-aloc/Pend/PC/DaysOn Temp: c3t1d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/38/1966 26 c4t1d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/38/1966 27 c8t1d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/38/1966 27 c9t1d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/39/1966 29 c10t1d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/39/1966 27 c11t6d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/39/1966 30 c3t2d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/38/1967 28 c4t2d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/1/38/1967 29 c8t2d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/38/1967 30 c9t2d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 2/0/39/1966 31 c10t2d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/39/1967 29 c11t5d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/39/1967 27 c3t3d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/38/1966 30 c4t3d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/38/1967 31 c8t3d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/38/1966 32 c9t3d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/39/1967 32 c10t3d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/39/1967 31 c11t4d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/39/1967 24 c3t4d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/38/1966 23 c4t4d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/38/1967 24 c8t4d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/38/1967 25 c11t1d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/39/1967 27 c10t4d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/39/1966 24 c11t3d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 13/0/39/1967 31 c3t5d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/38/1967 27 c4t5d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/38/1967 26 c8t5d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/38/1967 28 c9t5d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 1/0/39/1966 29 c10t5d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/39/1966 27 c11t2d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/39/1966 30 c3t6d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/38/1967 29 c4t6d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/38/1966 29 c8t6d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/38/1966 30 c9t6d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/39/1966 30 c10t6d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/39/1967 28 c10t7d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/39/1966 30 c3t7d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/38/1966 30 c4t7d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/38/1966 30 c8t7d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/38/1966 32 c9t7d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/39/1966 31 zpool: rpool device Model Number/Firmware Re-aloc/Pend/PC/DaysOn Temp: c9t0d0s0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 5/0/39/1966 25
Another random hitachi machine:
Code:Solaris SATA System Detected zpool: pool device Model Number/Firmware Re-aloc/Pend/PC/DaysOn Temp: c3t0d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/32/1628 25 c3t1d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 14/0/32/1628 28 c3t2d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/32/1628 30 c3t3d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 2/0/32/1628 32 c3t5d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 18/5/32/1628 27 c3t6d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/32/1628 29 c3t7d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/32/1628 31 c4t0d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/32/1628 26 c4t1d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/32/1628 29 c4t2d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/32/1627 31 c4t3d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/32/1627 32 c4t4d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 2/0/32/1628 26 c4t5d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 3/2/32/1628 28 c4t6d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/32/1628 30 c4t7d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/32/1628 31 c8t0d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 1/0/32/1628 27 c8t1d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/32/1628 30 c8t2d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/32/1628 32 c8t3d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/32/1628 32 c8t4d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 2/0/32/1628 26 c8t5d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/32/1628 30 c8t6d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/32/1628 31 c8t7d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/32/1628 33 c9t1d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 2/0/32/1628 31 c9t2d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 1/0/32/1627 32 c9t3d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/32/1628 33 c9t4d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/31/1591 27 c9t5d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/32/1628 30 c9t6d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/32/1628 32 c9t7d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/32/1628 33 c10t0d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/32/1628 27 c10t1d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/32/1628 29 c10t2d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/32/1628 31 c10t3d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/32/1628 32 c10t4d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 6/3/32/1628 26 c10t5d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/32/1628 29 c10t6d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 3/0/32/1628 30 c10t7d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/32/1628 31 c11t0d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/32/1628 27 c11t1d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/32/1628 29 c11t2d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/32/1628 31 c11t3d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 2/0/32/1628 32 c11t4d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/32/1628 27 c11t5d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/32/1627 29 c3t4d0 G.SKILL/02.10104 0/0/181/0 0 c11t6d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 1/0/32/1628 31 c11t7d0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/32/1628 32 zpool: rpool device Model Number/Firmware Re-aloc/Pend/PC/DaysOn Temp: c9t0d0s0 HDS7250SASUN500G/K2AOAJ0A 0/0/31/1591 27
Compare this to another machine with the same number of drives but seagate (a few hitachi because now seagates are getting replaced with hitachi):
Code:Solaris SATA System Detected zpool: raid2680 device Model Number/Firmware Re-aloc/Pend/PC/DaysOn Temp: c0t5000C5000FE4F503d0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 3/0/18/541 35 c0t5000C50014ED84DFd0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 0/0/20/1208 35 c0t5000C50014EEE7A0d0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 14/4/20/1208 34 c0t5000C5000FE277D5d0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 164/0/18/562 33 c0t5000C5001138AB7Dd0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 12/29/20/1208 33 c0t5000C500112F67C2d0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 36/0/20/1208 31 c0t5000C5001130FC56d0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 2/0/20/1208 37 c0t5000C50014A2F9FAd0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 63/0/18/1208 36 c0t5000C5001138EA0Ed0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 11/0/20/1208 37 c0t5000C50011310ED4d0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 0/0/20/1208 34 c0t5000C50011387101d0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 3/0/20/1208 34 c0t5000C5001138D1ECd0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 9/15/20/1208 32 c0t5000C50011223C05d0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 2/0/20/1208 36 c0t5000C5001135CBBAd0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 4/0/20/1208 36 c0t5000C500152740EEd0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 3/0/16/293 36 c0t5000C50011382748d0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 5/0/20/1208 35 c0t5000C50010F6D1AFd0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 49/0/20/1208 34 c0t5000C500112F8BB9d0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 4/0/20/1208 32 c0t5000C5001108E5A0d0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 1/1/20/1208 35 c0t5000C500113932C4d0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 5/0/20/1208 35 c0t5000C50011364110d0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 2/0/20/1208 34 c0t5000C5001058E143d0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 11/0/16/293 33 c0t5000C50014DA8576d0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 4095/0/20/1208 33 --Reallocated_Sector_Ct is FAILING NOW! Replace ASAP! zpool: raid8947 device Model Number/Firmware Re-aloc/Pend/PC/DaysOn Temp: c0t5000C500113843B5d0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 13/0/16/1188 39 c0t5000C5001138E20Bd0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 1/0/16/1188 38 c0t5000C5002A196A0Ed0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 18/0/14/340 37 c0t5000C500112F4F53d0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 9/0/16/1188 37 c0t5000C5002A2BB776d0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 1/0/14/280 35 c0t5000C500112FA267d0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 6/0/16/1188 33 c0t5000C50011738869d0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 2/0/33/460 35 c0t5000C5001138DCFDd0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 1/0/16/1188 41 c0t5000C500111E64B1d0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 4095/0/16/1188 41 --Reallocated_Sector_Ct is FAILING NOW! Replace ASAP! c0t5000C50011384E81d0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 0/0/16/1188 40 c0t5000C50011386E0Cd0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 4084/11/16/1188 37 --Reallocated_Sector_Ct is FAILING NOW! Replace ASAP! c0t5000C5001138E81Cd0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 26/0/16/1188 34 c0t5000CCA224D748C1d0 HUA723020ALA640/MK7OAA10 0/0/7/107 40 c0t5000C50011300BBEd0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 2/0/17/1188 41 c0t5000CCA224D74587d0 HUA723020ALA640/MK7OAA10 0/0/7/107 39 c0t5000C5001138E54Ad0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 35/0/16/1188 40 c0t5000C500105CF0B9d0 ST31500341AS/SD17 3/0/14/543 38 c0t5000C500112C01A6d0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 6/0/16/1188 35 c0t5000C500113606E5d0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 0/0/16/1188 39 c0t5000C500112DC8EDd0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 3/0/16/1188 38 c0t5000C500153EEDCEd0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 15/0/20/910 38 c0t5000C5001135EA63d0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 11/0/16/1188 38 c0t5000C500112143C3d0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 25/0/16/1188 39 c0t5000C5001131EEA2d0 ST31500341AS/CC1H 3/0/16/1188 35 zpool: rpool device Model Number/Firmware Re-aloc/Pend/PC/DaysOn Temp: c3t0d0s0 ST500NM0011/SN02 0/0/13/273 34
-
02-17-2013, 05:54 AM #24Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Posts
- 3,700
-
02-17-2013, 06:08 AM #25Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Posts
- 555
Due to the tracks being longer as you get closer to the outer edge of the platter (where the beginning of the drive starts) you will get faster sequential read/write speeds. Drives write from out-side in so gradually as you get to the end of the drive (and load data on it) speeds will go down up to 50% what they were at the beggining of the drive. This is completely normal for any normal mechanical HD. Obviously SSD's do not suffer from this.
Here is an example benchmark which shows it visually pretty well:
http://www.overclockers.com/forums/a...1&d=1240458209
Sorry if you were asking something different but it was kind of hard to tell from the last half of your message "is it find ? thanx" I guess you meant is it fine/normal?
Similar Threads
-
How much was seagate 1TB before flood?
By ServerZoo in forum Colocation, Data Centers, IP Space and NetworksReplies: 17Last Post: 04-21-2012, 10:26 PM -
Seagate 1TB HDDs for 50$
By CrimsonGT in forum Colocation, Data Centers, IP Space and NetworksReplies: 24Last Post: 11-23-2011, 03:30 AM -
Seagate Seagate Constellation SAS 2 TB SALE
By Remarkable-Guille in forum Web Hosting HardwareReplies: 0Last Post: 11-15-2011, 12:40 PM -
benchmarked - Intel X25-E SLC SSD v. Seagate 15k SAS v. WD 1TB RE3
By cwl@apaqdigital in forum Colocation, Data Centers, IP Space and NetworksReplies: 10Last Post: 03-27-2009, 09:25 AM -
toshiba repairs
By Mooecow in forum Web Hosting LoungeReplies: 8Last Post: 05-13-2005, 01:17 AM