Laurence Perkins wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> >> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2022 12:52 PM >> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org >> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Backup program that compresses data but only >> changes new files. >> >> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 3:41 PM Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Glad to know what I found was good info. I just wonder how long it >>> will be before even 10TB drives will be SMR. I also dread having to >>> search out a 14TB drive later. :/ >>> >> I think it will be a long time if ever, and here is why. >> >> There are good reasons and bad reasons to use SMR. The reason you would >> WANT to use SMR is that you have a task that is well-suited to their >> limitations like backup or applications that can use log-style storage. >> Ideally you'd want host-managed SMR for this. The benefit is higher density >> for the cost, so you'd be doing it to get a drive that is cheaper than it >> otherwise would be. However, these are all things that would appeal to >> experts who really know what they're doing. >> >> The bad reason to use SMR is that you're a manufacturer trying to squeeze >> out a bit more profit margin, not passing on the savings. In this case you >> want to sell the drive to somebody who DOESN'T know what they're doing, and >> make it drive-managed. >> >> This is why we've seen SMR in medium-sized drives and not big ones as would >> be expected if you assumed it would be employed for the good reasons. The >> only people buying 14TB hard drives are people who tend to know what they're >> doing, which makes them less of a target for unscrupulous manufacturers. >> You wouldn't see them as much in small drives as the return in capacity >> isn't as much. The medium sized drives are big enough to get a return out >> of using SMR, but small enough that suckers will be willing to buy them. >> >> At least, that's my theory... >> >> -- >> Rich >> >> > A big chunk of it is that, when SMR drives came out, there was no reliable OS > support for it, so it basically had to be drive-managed. Which then had > horrible performance, and the cherry on top was that the drive manufacturers > tried to cover up what they'd changed. So that made lots of the big > companies doing big storage applications decide that SMR was crap and they > simply will not buy SMR drives at any price. > > Which is a real pity because there are lots of large-data applications where > the write order is pretty much entirely sequential, so a properly designed, > host managed system would see virtually no performance loss from SMR, and be > able to take advantage of the higher density. > > The moral is: be transparent with your customers. > > LMP
I do think that there are use cases where a SMR is just fine. Thing is, the customer should know what they getting to make sure they have a use case where SMR works fine. The drive makers should have told users up front to avoid such problems and damage to the new technology. As you point out, the makers by hiding it, damaged their own reputations when they tried to hide the facts. For my backup, it does take longer to sort the data out but it does work OK. After I'm done with my backups, I unmount and close the encryption on the drive. Then I just let it sit there until the bumpy thing stops. Quite often, it's 5 or 10 minutes but on occasion it will do its bumpy thing for 30 minutes or so. Some backup changes are quite large. Would I have bought it if I knew what it was and the extra time it takes, no. While it works, it is inconvenient for me to have to wait. Now that I know about SMR drives, I try to avoid them because I do sometimes rotate drives around and even tho it is fine for backups, I can't for example use that drive if I were to build a RAID system in a NAS or other use cases where SMR drives perform badly. I think when a drive is sold that is SMR, it should be in the description to make sure it is known. It should have been from the start. Sadly, it's rare that it is even now. As always, it just depends on what you plan to do with it. Dale :-) :-) P. S. Please pardon my time between replies. Since I use a VPN and most all of them block email, I have to stop the VPN to fetch and send emails. Eventually I'll figure out how to tunnel Seamonkey through the VPN without having to stop it. Eventually. Maybe. lol
