My goodness if you got 4 years out of a WDRed you got lucky. HD's are not forever. Have you seen the Backblaze hard drive reliability data? You might find it interesting, i do. :-)
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-stats-q1-2016/ On May 10, 2017 12:16:28 AM PDT, Michael Christopher Robinson <[email protected]> wrote: >I suspect that my two Western Digital 4TB Red drives are only 3-4 >years old. I'm running FreeNAS 9.10 U3. I'm getting an error >finding the ZFS filesystem that is striped across the two drives. >Thought maybe I had done a mirror, no such luck. I suppose I can >take these drives to someone who can do some tests to find out if >one or both of them have gone bad. Can they be repaired? How >about the data on them? > >I'm debating the wisdom of buying any hard drive, especially one >that is larger than 2 terabytes. The failure rate of large drives >is too high if they fail in under 3 years. NAS is usually deployed >to make large amounts of data or backups available over a local area >network. Failing in under 2-3 years is not acceptable for backup >purposes. SSDs seem to be faster and more robust, but they are very >expensive at 10x the cost of hard drives. How many writes can an SSD >take compared to a WD Red drive before it fails? How many times can >you read a file before there is a failure between a 2TB WD Red hard >drive verses a 2TB Samsung 860 EVO SSD? The former costs about >$89.99 new, the latter at least $500 new. Does the SSD last 5x as >long as the large high end hard drive? How repairable is the SSD >when it fails? > >Increasingly, marketing hard drives as being robust seems to me to be >nothing more than marketing. I don't care if you call your hard drive >Red, Green, Black, Blue, or Purple. The result is the same, the drive >fails in under 5 years. Although, I have some Green drives that seem >to do better than that. > >Paying $500 for an SSD to put movies on is expensive, but spending $90 >every 2-3 years could also be quite expensive. There's the time to rip >the movies again that also has to be considered which is worth >something when you have to buy a new blank hard drive. > >I may have mixed up which SATA cable is connected to which hard drive, >but it is highly likely that at least one of the 4 TB hard drives isn't >reading which makes mixing them up kinda irrelevant. I have 2 4 TB >hard drives, 1 2 TB hard drive, and 1 500G hard drive. > >I'm bidding $500 on an SSD which I'll pay via paypal credit if I win, >but I'm not thrilled about this. That is really expensive for me right >now. Going the hard drive route, especially if I decide we need to do >RAID or have offline spares, that gets really expensive really fast >also. > >I can't convince my father, even myself, that hard drives are a good >idea. I doubt I can convince him that a 2 TB SSD is an acceptable >option either. Beyond 2 Terabytes, SSDS are prohibitively expensive. >Couldn't you make a high capacity 5.25" full height SSD cheaper than >a 2.5" half height high capacity SSD? Why is it that practically all >SSDs you can get will fit in a laptop when desktops have a lot more >room? If SSDs cost 2x what hard drives do, it wouldn't make sense to >buy hard drives anymore. At 10x the cost, it isn't so clear. >_______________________________________________ >PLUG mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
