On 2016-10-11 18:10, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 08:07:53AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2016-10-09 19:12, Charles Zeitler wrote:
Is there any advantage to using NAS drives
under RAID levels, as oppposed to regular
'desktop' drives for BTRFS?
[...]
So, as for what you should use in a RAID array, here's my specific advice:
1. Don't worry about enterprise drives unless you've already got a system
that has them. They're insanely overpriced for relatively minimal benefit
when compared to NAS drives.
2. If you can afford NAS drives, use them, they'll get you the best
combination of energy efficiency, performance, and error recovery.
3. If you can't get NAS drives, most desktop drives work fine, but you will
want to bump up the scsi_command_timer attribute in the kernel for them (200
seconds is reasonable, just make sure you have good cables and a good
storage controller).
4. Avoid WD Green drives, without special effort, they will get worse
performance and have shorter lifetimes than any other hard disk I've ever
seen.
5. Generally avoid drives with a capacity over 1TB from manufacturers other
than WD, HGST, and Seagate, most of them are not particularly good quality
(especially if it's an odd non-power-of-two size like 5TB).
+1 ! Additionally, is it still the case that it is generally safer to
buy the largest capacity disks offered by the previous generation of
technology rather than the current largest capacity? eg: right now
that would be 4TB or 6TB, and not 8TB or 10TB.
In general, yes, but you're normally safe as long as you're not using
SMR disks. I've used a couple of 8TB non-SMR drives, and they work
perfectly fine (although they're insanely expensive), it's just been the
SMR stuff that's been an issue (and you shouldn't be using them for
non-archival storage anyway).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
