/dev/sdf is reporting errors in increasing (yet still relatively low) numbers, so it's time to be looking at replacing my disk array. It currently consists of 6 1.5TB Samsung drives in software raid 5. I'm considering either 4 x 3TB WD Red, or given it's just been released, 3x4TB WD Red. the latter is about 60 quid more expensive and would leave me with ~1TB less free space, but would also leave me an extra sata port free. Either planned new array would fit in the server alongside the existing one for the purposes of copying data over, so can anyone think of any other factors to help me decide between the two? regardless of which way i go i'll likely add another disk or two in the next few months. Also, any suggestions for what I can do with 5 1.5TB samsung drives? They've been run at a max temp of 24 degrees for the past 5 years, one of them only has ~35 power cycles, the other 4 have maybe double that (the one which failed is one of a newer pair i added a while back). I have the ports to add them in my desktop or htpc, but not really the space, and i don't need the storage locally on those machines, that's why i have a file server.
Doesn't make an awful lot of sence to me to pay more for less (thou one less drive is better on paper for drive failure chance, but I doubt it would make a significant difference). You could use some of the old drives for either backup or off-site backup of really important data. if you dont allready.
i'm using the 6 500GB samsung drives from the previous generation for backup purposes I'm edging towards the 4x3TB option now, as i'm really unlikely to fill the other 6 bays before i end up replacing the array again; the last one only went from 4 to 6 drives over a 5 year period (a single upgrade after a couple of years). WD Reds aren't known to run hot or anything are they? My cooling's pretty good but the intake fans are also passively cooling my CPU cooler. I can always add a fan to it if necesary i suppose.
Well, they run a bit hotter than my Greens, but not by much : Code: /dev/sdb: WDC WD30EFRX-68AX9N0: 44°C /dev/sdc: WDC WD30EFRX-68AX9N0: 44°C /dev/sdd: WDC WD30EFRX-68AX9N0: 43°C /dev/sde: WDC WD30EFRX-68AX9N0: 41°C /dev/sdf: WDC WD20EARS-00MVWB0: 40°C /dev/sdg: WDC WD20EARX-00PASB0: 37°C /dev/sdh: WDC WD20EARX-00PASB0: 38°C /dev/sdi: WDC WD20EARX-22PASB0: 36°C /dev/sdj: WDC WD20EARS-00MVWB0: 31°C /dev/sdk: WDC WD20EARX-00PASB0: 33°C /dev/sdl: WDC WD20EARX-00PASB0: 33°C /dev/sdm: WDC WD20EARX-00PASB0: 30°C /dev/sdn: WDC WD20EARX-00PASB0: 40°C /dev/sdn is in external Icybox 4-bay case, everything else is in a Nanoxia Deep Silence 1 with 12cm intake fans in front of them, all running at around 6-7V.
If you dont need the bays then I would go 4x3TB. I am running 4x2TB in a microserver (40NL) atm (linux software raid5). /dev/sda: WDC WD20EFRX-68AX9N0: 28░C /dev/sdb: WDC WD20EFRX-68AX9N0: 29░C /dev/sdc: WDC WD20EFRX-68AX9N0: 29░C /dev/sdd: WDC WD20EFRX-68AX9N0: 29░C Current growth rates should give me another year or atleast 10months before I need to 1) delete or 2) upgrade
see, i filled 4x1.5 in under a year, moving from a 3TB array. I upgraded that to 6x1.5 after a couple of years, but I've been running at capacity for a couple of years, i just delete a heap of stuff off every so often and don't worry about it. Also both your guys temps seem a little high, but i'm assuming it's because i have over the top cooling, or you have different drives which run hotter. knowing it's the former would be great I have all 6 down the front of the case cooled by 3x120mm fans, though not sure what speed. the cpu is passively cooled behidn them and there's a 120mm exhaust on the back. They're slightly warmer since i moved house and now it's sat next to another box (the one which does media transcoding) but they've still only risen to 24 degrees max. Assuming they do generate more heat, i'm assuming those temperatures you've both given are comfortable and not liekly to cause you any hassle?
My drives are located in the main hotswap bays of the microserver with no upgraded cooling (single 120mm at the rear?). Its on an elevated shelf in a cupboard - no additional cooling or air movement within the cupboard (but no door! ) I'm happy if they are under 30c, ambient temp in the room is OK - although it is south facing. Personally I'd want them closer to 30 than 40
Personally I'd go with the WD RE drives over the Reds. I had a 5x3TB array of the Reds and it was just irritatingly slow (couldn't fast forward my 1080p content from my PS3). I've since replaced it with 3x4TB RE drives and they've been a LOT nicer (just need to buy one or two more).
Red = 5400RPM, Raid Edition = 7200 RPM (except RE Green). Of course they are going to be quicker, but noisier too.
I have no issues playing 1080 content from my 4x2tb reds (linux raid5, 512k chunk) over gig wired network to my xbmc htpc,
yeah speeds not going to be an issue, i've not had trouble since i went to gigabit ethernet, and i only had an issue beforehand when using samba, nfs worked without a hitch. plus i got ethernet wired throughout the flat when i bought it i think 4x3TB reds will be the thing to go for. now fingers crossed i don't lose another disk before i get them ordered.
The Reds are slightly slower and you will feel the difference if downgrading from 7200rpm drives. I have two and they run perfectly fine, very quietly and less power hungry. I leave it to you to decide which capacity 3/4TB.
i'll double check when i'm home but i'm pretty sure my current drives are all 5400rpm. I stopped using NFS when windows 7 was all 'oh, you'll need enterprise or ultimate for out of the box nfs support'. i was faced with paying an extra 80 quid or so for an NFS client, or switch back to samba. thankfully samba doesn't appear to have any issues now, either due to newer software or my upgrade to gigabit ethernet. The issue i had before may even have been down to having software raid and samba both running off a single core, but it's been dual core since 2008. The REs look significantly more expensive than the reds, and i'm not sure they offer that much more for the money given my intended use. I suppose you do get a (theoretical) read speed increase with raid 5.
