Large >1TB drives in GOS unit

[HarryC]

I have sucessfully added 1TB WD caviar black drives to a 550. I have two additional 550's and an 18000. Has anyone sucessfully added 1.5 or 2TB drives to any of thes units?
If so what brand / model of drive worked? Thanks

[willPower]

If your shiny new WD Caviar Black hard drives are not of the RE variety, then please read the following article:

Enterprise class versus desktop class hard drives

[HarryC]

I would agree that enterprise class drives are preferable on most occasions but if you look at the caviar black vs re version the only real difference is in the time a read error is retried the re is 7 seconds vs 15 seconds on the standard version. Warranties on both drives are 5 years. I have numerous caviar black drives rinning in Promise arrays for the last year with zero failures. I can't say the same for HP u320 SCSI drives in some other arrays. It's been my experience that a drive taking 15 seconds to recover a read error would be thrown offline by the raid controller and you get a degraded warning on the array. Never had one with the caviar blacks so...... The price/performance is right if you need a lot of storage. You definitely want to stay away from the "green" versions of the drives for arrays.

[Max8]

This is a great subject, drives types (and which are the best for snaps) is getting harder & harder to keep track of;

I have people at work telling me that there is no difference between Enterprise & Desktop Drives apart from the price and the warranty!
(I have always thought this was BS but I still believe in Santa too!)

For home in a snap I have no problem with good desktop drives if they are the better models as I replicate everything… I get the impression that the general reliability of Desktop SATA HDD’s is very close Enterprise SATA & SAS HDD’s relatively speaking…

Originally Posted by HarryC

You definitely want to stay away from the "green" versions of the drives for arrays.

What do the green drives do wrong?
1. do the power-down tweaks adversely effect arrays?
2. or are they unreliable?

[blue68f100]

I have heard that WD has tweeked there firmware so if your using a std HD in Raid you may have problems.

I have had used both years back and I will tell you the interprise HD are a lot heavier duty.

[HarryC]

WD may have changed the drive BIOS so desktop drives won't work in raid 5 but I doubt it, I have WD's (desktop) running in a Promise raid box (14 drives raid5) for more than a year zero problems. I havs a Snap550 with 4 1gb caviar black drives raid 5 running for two weeks now with heavy iscsi traffic from backups...zero problems. I also have two HP XW8400s with caviar black 1gb in raid 5 again no problems. NOTE from my reading the new WD 2tb drives have a new block size(I believe that is what it was) that is incompatable with most raid controllers. Susposedly the drive can have a conversion program run on it. I'll see if I can get one, convert it on a PC then try it in a Snap550 as a single drive, if recognized I'll format and use it. If it tests out good then add more for raid5

[HarryC]

I just checked and the Promise box (actually 2 of them) have 1.5TB drives in raid 5. The only change to the box was to go into maintenance mode and issue a command >2tb so arrays greater than 2TB were supported
Harry

[HarryC]

It appears that the green models of various manufacturers, slow their rotation when not used or other power savings measures wich vary by manufacturer and this drives some raid controllers nuts. It would be great if someone could elaborate further!

[Phoenix32]

Well, if you dont want to listen to the Pros, then go to Newegg and read the ton of customer reviews on the WD (including the black) drives.

YES, you will find plenty of people saying they work great in their RAID, but you will also find a ton of people saying they have routine drop-outs in their RAID arrays. Many of these people have tried all the programs and firmware revisions to no joy. Thisis a known problem in the industry with WD drives. I will also add, one that WD does not seem to want to fix. Draw your own conclusions as to why.

The bottom line, if you got lucky, be happy. BUT! Unless you want to buy RE drives, you cannot buy WD drives and be assured they are going to work in your RAID array.

Let's see a show of hands. How many of you want to buy 4+ drives at $100-$150 each on the HOPE that they will work in your RAID array, instead of KNOW they will work in your RAID array? ---- That's what I thought.....

I am not saying buy RE drives either. I think the price premium you pay is way too high (read: rip-off). What I instead recommend is, buy other brand drives if your gonna do a RAID.

[HarryC]

Well I guess the measurement of being a pro is not using WD drives the real experts depend on single user reports on Egghead etc., They blacks must be bad as they come with a 5yr warranty Do the others? We go thru hundreds of hard drives of all models so I'v seen failure rates in the real world Some Seagates, some Maxtors have high failure rates as well as some models of WD, IBMs were good and still seem to be after Hitachi took over. We have upgraded three Snap550s now with the black drives and have installed 12 more in HP XW8400's in raid 5 all with no DOAs. The Snap550s are undergoing stress testing, being driven by 4 DL380 G5s VMware about 80 virtual machines (Server 2008r2,2008,2003 and 2003r2. The 550s run iscsi and are hosting some machines and are the target for VCenter backups, quite a load and zero problems. I admit there are many faster solutions but none as cost effective. I'll report back after a few weeks of testing and productions with the extended results. I realize Im a newbie as I have only been in the business since 1965 and ran several hardware level 3 support centers for IBM before I retired

[willPower]

.

[Phoenix32]

Originally Posted by HarryC

Well I guess the measurement of being a pro is not using WD drives the real experts depend on single user reports on Egghead etc

You are twisting my words. I did not say anything about using WD or Not was a defininition of a Pro. Nor did I say you were or were not one. You are just being a jerk. Now with that said.

I define a Pro as a person who do something for a living, with formal training in that field, and some minimum amount of experience in that field.

I myself am an Engineering Technician (hardware, and R&D) for both analog and digital computers and systems from component level to mainframes. I have more formal education in my field than most Doctors do in theirs. I also have 30+ years real world experience. I would have to say that qualifies me as a Pro in this catagory.

I do not know "willPower", but I do know a professional when I hear one.

David (blue68f100) is no rookie either.

NONE OF THAT means you or anyone else is or is not a pro. But, what I said was, "if you dont want to listen to the Pros", which was a ref to the comments made by the Pros I just listed and you appeared not to want to listen to. Thus, my statement was correct.

Why is this important? Because other pros, hobbiests, and even basic home users come here for accurate information and when possible professional opinions. You gave yours, which we did not agree with, but you have a right to. However, I publicly disagreed with you and gave you 1 of many examples as to why, which I have a right to. Further, I qualified the opinions of those to whom I agreed, thus allowing others to decide for themselves how to weight the opinions.

Originally Posted by HarryC

I realize Im a newbie as I have only been in the business since 1965 and ran several hardware level 3 support centers for IBM before I retired

Okay, so you are a pro also, or at least were at some point. Never said you weren't. But I suggest mabye you are a little bit of a WD fanboy or maybe are a bit out of date. Things do change, as you should know. In any case, that does not change those I mentioned being pros also, who disagree.

While I am at it real pros rely on MANY sources for their information, not just a few. I can cite very numerous example on which my opinion was based. Again, as I already said before, this is a KNOWN PROBLEM with the newer WD drives within the industry.

It so happens, for the record, I like WD drives. They have a good reputation for reliability and so forth. I quite often select WD drives when I am able for an application. However, RAID arrays is NOT one of them, and for reasons some of which I gave.

I also know some people in the industry become fanboys of certain devices over the years and end up putting blinders on due to this.

For RAID arrays, I "was" using Seagate drives as the choice for that application. Recently, this may have to change. They are having reliability problems IMO with the 1TB thru 2TB drives. I am currently evaluating a lot of information to find a good choice in the SATA 1TB to 2TB drives for use in RAID arrays. WD has already been eliminated in this catagory due to their overall unreliability for use in RAID arrays as of current. As always, things change, but as of right now, and for the last year or more, that is what it is.

IMO

[HarryC]

Enough of who's the expert. This discussion should be about what is tested and actually works and what doesn't.
As I have said previously we now have three 550's that are undergoing reliability testing (a few weeks, not long term) I agree long term testing would be great but do want me to tell you about the results in two years? I will but most would like some results much sooner.
I just checked one 550:
Guardian OS 4.3.007
Bios Adapt108
Memory 1024MB
CPU speed 2394Mhz
Drives are reported as 976GB WDC-WD1001FALS
Ethernet Bonding is set to Load Balance
Dedicated switched Gigabit to servers
The iscsi thruput isn't bad but could be better. I have additional memory for the 550s which probably will improve their performance, That will be the next stage of testing. The machines DL380 G5 2xquad core 3.15s have nics that can do iscsi in the nic, but it is somewhat unclear whether VMware 4.x is using that or does it in software. Does anyone know for sure? The VMware is HPs version susposedly optomized for their systems. I'll post performance figures when inital testing is done and I've tried more memory. While the performance isn't bad it isn't near what our Promise arrays do which are on direct U320 SCSI channels. Obviously Gig Iscsi physically can't run that fast, but is so flexible for a san.
Who else had tried drives in raid arrays, What we can use is info on drive models and what kind of raid array (hardware controller or software raid) number of drives used, hot spares? I also like to yank a running drive to see how fast the rebuild is some are very fast while I've had other setups take 40+hours to recover a 1TB drive.
All this will help the community as we move forward
HarryC

[HarryC]

To answer a previous question, I upgrade by installing three new drives in a 550, leaving the right most (your right facing the front of the 550) as the right most drive seems to the first that boot is tried on. Actually all you need to do is leave one old drive in any position but this way seemed faster The OS will be copied to all the new drives, probably quickly but I left the 550 over night, after that swap out the last drive, first boot may be slower as the new drive is tried for boot until a timeout then boot tries next drive. Once it's booted up make your new big array and have fun.

[jugganaut]

@HarryC

I have a GOS 520 running 4.1.106 and I want to upgrade to 2TB drives. Obviously I need to upgrade the OS, should I upgrade all the way to 5.2.056, 4.4.049 or 4.2.054? Also, what do they mean by "requires entitlement"? Sorry for my ignorance, but I installed this in our rack and pretty much forgot about it until now.

One the OS is installed, I can just follow your simple instructions in the above post and it should copy the OS over to the new drives?

Thanks for your help in advance!

[willPower]

.

[HarryC]

I realize that not using a drive from overland would void the warranty if the boxes were still on warranty. I think that most who are upgrading these boxes probably have boxes that are past warranty. The original ones I upgraded have been running 24/7 for four weeks with no errors, so we will see.
I read the Intel article comparing consumer PC drives with raid class drives.. very interesting. I then found an article on comparison of WD black drives to WD RE class drives (RE class are raid drives). In a complete physical breakdown of the drives, all mechanical components were exactly the same! The RE model has slightly faster seek time and generates more heat. I would suspect they use more power on the actuator = more speed / more heat. The read retry time is shorter on the RE models but this poses an interesting question. Lets say the RE retrys a read error 3 times while the black model tries 6 times (figures just for discussion )
The black model is dropped as a bad drive by raid controller because it takes too long. If the RE model didn't get a good read in three tries the raid controller posts a read error against the drive, SMART records it also. Either way the drive could be dropped depending on the error thresholds in the raid controller. Any opinions on this? Intel said that all buffer memory in raid class drives is ECC but I can't find any manufacturer info on this. But since every block of data read has ecc on it does it matter? As far as RE class drives being more rugged is it easier for a drive to remain up and running for 5 straight years or cycled up and down every day as PC class drives are rated? Any drive needs proper cooling and raid arrays may be very well designed for better cooling than a lot of desktops.
Lets get some more opinions and what have others tried with what results?

[willPower]

.

[HarryC]

I knew someone would ask, I don't remember it but I printed a hard copy at my shop. I've moved to cottage for summer but should be back at shop in 2-3 weeks and I'll look it up then. Until then search for WDtler.zip . It will turn tler (the read timeout setting) on or off in both WD black drives an WD RE drives. I guess that eliminates that difference between drives. Someone test it and report back, I just tried it and Windows 7 said it needed a 32 bit system and unfortunately all three systems I have here are Windows 7 x64 two have the WD black drives. I'll be able to test it when I get back 2-3 weeks. Hopefully someone can test before then.
Thanks Everyone
HarryC

[willPower]

.

[HarryC]

I think this forum would be much better served without references to conspiracy theories etc. As far as why are the RE drives more expensive, manufacturing costs aren't much different between drives SAS, SATA, SCSI just a few interface chips which cost pennies. How does a drive that cost $300 18 months ago now cost $80-$90 Simple competition and what the market will bear. Why does a Mercury cost more than an equivalent Ford? Difference in trim that costs a few bucks?. And yes I was a hard disk engineer for IBM many years ago granted mainframe hard disks hydralic actuators but the theories are still the same.
Lets stay on topic!

[Phoenix32]

I myself think he is on topic, but I digress...

You are correct, a forum can do without conspiracy theories and so forth as a general rule. Same with general cover-all statements.

i.e. There is a big differnce between

a) The WD Black drives work in the Snap XXXX.

-and-

b) The WD Black drives work great for me, and some others, but many others have had problems also. It's a crap shoot with those drives.


One would be accurate, the other would be a general cover-all statement that is just as bad for value as a conspiracy theory.

[Phoenix32]

Also, in the absense of hard information from the manufacturer, which they are not likely to provide, at least the conspiracy theories give a possible reason and what to look for maybe.

[Max8]

Ladies & Gents;

To summarize this thread, basing it on my experiences and taking into account the views of many I have discussed this issue with, if it is possible to break it down into the following statements, would you guys agree or preferably, care enough to put forward your take on the following simple statements;

--------------------------------cut here-----------------------------------
For use in SnapServers (& normal PC use also?)

Western Digital - Have not used them some love them some hate them
Seagate - Preferred / No problems with my last PATA upgrade
Hitachi - Have not used them but I hear they are ok
Samsung - Never used not a fan from all I have heard

Desktop V's Enterprise
There is a definite difference, Enterprise are better but the cost for most uses the extra cost does not justify choosing Enterprise over Desktop HDD's with the reliability we are seeing with Desktop these days & considering in most cases we are home users.

To avoid issues we should be limiting our 3Gbps drives to 1.5Gbps when using in SnapServers
--------------------------------cut here-----------------------------------

Please contribute constructively cut and past in this simple format but answer as you see it.
Lets not attack, lets just share what we think so we can make our own decisions.

Your friend (from GMT+10)

Matt

[Phoenix32]

Originally Posted by Max8

[color="Yellow"]
--------------------------------cut here-----------------------------------
For use in SnapServers (& normal PC use also?)

Western Digital - Have not used them some love them some hate them
Seagate - Preferred / No problems with my last PATA upgrade
Hitachi - Have not used them but I hear they are ok
Samsung - Never used not a fan from all I have heard

Desktop V's Enterprise
There is a definite difference, Enterprise are better but the cost for most uses the extra cost does not justify choosing Enterprise over Desktop HDD's with the reliability we are seeing with Desktop these days & considering in most cases we are home users.

To avoid issues we should be limiting our 3Gbps drives to 1.5Gbps when using in SnapServers
--------------------------------cut here-----------------------------------

Normal PC use and Snap Server use is not the same IMO and thus should not be grouped together. The key word there is "server".

Western Digital - I have used many of them (still do) and I like Western Digital drives. The problem with WD is when it comes to RAID arrays. If you plan to use them in a RAID array, PC or Server, they have proved unreliable this past year or two unless you buy the more expensive RE (RAID Edition) drives.

Seagate - Has their ups and downs, but at least used to, recently, made great reliable drives for servers or PCs. There "seems to be" a drop off in quality since they bought out Maxtor. Is it releated, I have no idea.

Maxtor - Junk, junk, and more junk, IMO.

Hitachi - I do not have a ton of personal use with them, but I have had decent luck with them. As a general rule (but not always) they run a bit hotter and are slower than others, but again, I have not had any real problems with them myself. This is one of those companies I can say you will get very mixed opinions on. Some people hate them with a passion and some love them, so...

Samsung - Used to be low end inexpensive drives, but they have been slowly coming up in the world and from all reports, are making great drives these days, better than others in some cases according to many people. I am just now switching over to them for server use and will find out myself (I explain more below).


Western Digital used to be one of my all time favorite drives and I do still like them, but I use a lot of RAID arrays and whatever change you attribute it to, this last couple years of their RAID problems has cut my use of them greatly. Problem is, if you are using RAID arrays, there is good chance you are looking for large capacity drives also. This is where the bite comes in. For whatever reason, this last year or two, many of the drive manufacturers higher capacity drives have been having higher than normal failure rates also. It seems they just don't test like they used to. For whatever reason or conspiracy theory you prescribe to, the bottom line still comes down to much higher failure rates in the first year than there used to be by leaps and bounds. The only exception(s) to this seem to be the Samsung drives and some of the Hitachi drives. This is why I am going over to Samsung right now and see for myself.

For Snap Servers, it is a crap shoot with the WD drives, you can expect to use your warranty at least once if you use Seagates, you might hate Hitachi, and that leaves Samsung which I cannot recommend due to lack of data yet.

Desktop vs Enterprise

This varies greatly from manufacturer to manufacturer and time in history back and forth.

As a general rule, enterprise drives are designed with higher tolerances, are tested better, have better bearings, etc etc etc. Simply, they are designed to last longer and have better reliability in 24/7 server business environments. To say they are the same is a bold face lie. They are not, with any manufacturer. As a minimum, the enterprise drives, even if they come of the same line, are tested more thoroughly and usualy have different firmware. And in other cases, are built completely different to a much higher standard. Again, it varies.

Do you need them in a home environment? Only YOU can decide that. It depends on too many variables of your usage and budget.