thoughts on Seagate Exos 16TB Enterprise HDD ??

See my other post. If you are not running other services like plex, then RAM is pretty much insignificant. Regardless I would recommend a 4 bay over a 2 bay. If you are planning on running a RAID on a 2 bay what would you do? A RAID1? It's a big investment for a single disk worth of data. Get a 4 bay and run a RAID5 IMO.

foot said:

any thoughts on WD vs seagate 16TB drives?

thanks

"WD Red Pro WD161KFGX 16TB 7200 RPM 512MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive"

$249.99

https://www.newegg.com/red-pro-wd161kfgx-16tb/p/N82E16822234429

also on WD website. same price:

https://www.westerndigital.com/prod...PLA&utm_content=&utm_term=WD161KFGX#WD161KFGX

Click to expand...

Looks like a good deal to me, and I'd definitely take WD over Seagate:

https://camelcamelcamel.com/product/B08K3VVKSW?context=search

One thing you could try which has worked for me in the past (I am in the UK - not sure if it'll work for you), is to register over at WD and put a couple of drives in your cart, sign out, and wait about 24 hrs. They may send you a discount code for 10 or 15%.

foot said:

Colin Creevey said:

OP could be shuking them to put them in a NAS? Would make sense as CMR vs SMR are both not ideal for a NAS environment.

Click to expand...

could you explain this please?

I don't have much experience with NAS, so any info would help

thanks

Click to expand...

Shucking is buying an external hard drive and removing the internal drive. Sounds counter intuitive but shucking is normally cheaper than buying the drive by itself. Normally companies like WD use drives that are left over stock so the drive inside could range from being something basic (as advertised) to a decent higher end drive.

As for CMR vs SMR for NAS, CMR is preferred but in all honesty, if you are just using the NAS for basic file storage of a single user it isn't going to make a difference. Only when the NAS is mission critical or used by a small group of people simultaneously is it really an issue. Many Youtube videos on the topic.

1DSmII said:

foot said:

any thoughts on WD vs seagate 16TB drives?

thanks

"WD Red Pro WD161KFGX 16TB 7200 RPM 512MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive"

$249.99

https://www.newegg.com/red-pro-wd161kfgx-16tb/p/N82E16822234429

also on WD website. same price:

https://www.westerndigital.com/prod...PLA&utm_content=&utm_term=WD161KFGX#WD161KFGX

Click to expand...

Looks like a good deal to me, and I'd definitely take WD over Seagate:

https://camelcamelcamel.com/product/B08K3VVKSW?context=search

One thing you could try which has worked for me in the past (I am in the UK - not sure if it'll work for you), is to register over at WD and put a couple of drives in your cart, sign out, and wait about 24 hrs. They may send you a discount code for 10 or 15%.

Click to expand...

good to know! I'm giving it a try..

when I first went to their web page, I was offered a 10% if I got on their mailing list...

which I did

btw, in-between, I had to use a different browser to get the offer the 2nd time (I passed on the first one)

thanks everyone! the NAS synology is a bit of a rabbit hole..

it's a bit hard to figure out what fits my needs and budget and cash burn...

going NAS brings the following benefits:

current benefits:

1) NOT USB !!

2) LAN

3) removes windows from the file system. When my program I'm working on crashes, I often need to power-cycle...which can be havoc on files...*sigh*

4) possible I could have my pi's use it for file storage

desired:

- BTFRS file system. Linux compatable. built into synology NAS

- virtualization. I could run virtual Linux machines (I think, I'm still learning about it all)

- install additional hard-drives

so...here are some possibile choices from amazon...

it's confusing the least expensive supports BTFRS while the others don't ??

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

low end choice (for me!)

Synology 2 bay NAS DiskStation DS220+ (Diskless)

2-bay; 2GB DDR4; supports BTRFS file system

$299.99

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

mid-level choice?? (I have no idea why this costs more than the DS220+)

Synology 2-Bay DiskStation DS723+ (Diskless)

2-bay; 2GB DDR4; NOT listed as supporting BTRFS file system!!!!

https://kb.synology.com/en-global/D...logy_NAS_models_support_the_Btrfs_file_system

$446.99

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Synology DiskStation DS723+ 2-Bay NAS Enclosure

2 bays

supports BTRFS file system

2GB ECC DDR4 RAM (user upgradable to 32 gig??)

2 x 3.5/2.5" Bays | 2 x M.2 2280 Slots

2.6 GHz AMD Ryzen R1600 Dual-Core

$449.99

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...RbQI4PUDhgsuPjFn95QE8giEkufMxbf4aAgxdEALw_wcB

data sheet:

https://global.download.synology.co...0+/enu/Synology_DS720_Plus_Data_Sheet_enu.pdf

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

high end choice (for me!)

Synology 4-Bay DiskStation DS923+ (Diskless)

4 gig ram (necessary for virtualization); NOT listed as supporting BTRFS file system!!!!

4 bays

$599.99

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BM7KDN6R?tag=edyus-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1

thoughts?

thanks!

Re:

https://kb.synology.com/en-global/D...logy_NAS_models_support_the_Btrfs_file_system

That page indicates that it hasn't been updated since October 2022. So you may need to follow the link to "current models that support Btrfs" or check individual data sheets to get the full picture.

If you want a NAS google


TrueNas which used to be Freenas

They sell high end systems but you can build your own using the software. You may have some bits at home already.

A two drive NAS isn't really going to give you much.

You either mirror the drives for safety. Or you stripe them for speed.

Those low end dual drive systems tend to be under powered.

A dual drive system is a bit safer than one drive but there is a chance (likely a good chance) that both drives fail at once. If you are hoping for speed you still need to add a backup system.

NickZ2016 said:

If you want a NAS google

TrueNas which used to be Freenas

They sell high end systems but you can build your own using the software. You may have some bits at home already.

A two drive NAS isn't really going to give you much.

You either mirror the drives for safety. Or you stripe them for speed.

Those low end dual drive systems tend to be under powered.

A dual drive system is a bit safer than one drive but there is a chance (likely a good chance) that both drives fail at once. If you are hoping for speed you still need to add a backup system.

Click to expand...

thanks for "TrueNas"

It's bit too much effort at present, so I'm checking in to it for the future.

for now it's looking good for a low-end synology box.

I need something I can just plug in a go

NickZ2016 said:

If you want a NAS google

TrueNas which used to be Freenas

They sell high end systems but you can build your own using the software. You may have some bits at home already.

A two drive NAS isn't really going to give you much.

You either mirror the drives for safety. Or you stripe them for speed.

Those low end dual drive systems tend to be under powered.

A dual drive system is a bit safer than one drive but there is a chance (likely a good chance) that both drives fail at once. If you are hoping for speed you still need to add a backup system.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the TrueNAS idea. I may use that in my Acer AC100. It's going to be just network storage for my system here. It will have 4 8tb drives for now, but moving to 18tb drives in the near future. I am still trying to see if I can add a small ssd to put the OS on to keep the hot swaps pure storage with no OS.

I have only had one drive fail in all my years of using and building computers. It was a Seagate SSHD. Worked decently when I had it running, but crapped the bed about 6 months later. got the replacement, and put it into the 2007 macbook I owned and sold it.

The Point and Shoot Pro said:

NickZ2016 said:

If you want a NAS google

TrueNas which used to be Freenas

They sell high end systems but you can build your own using the software. You may have some bits at home already.

A two drive NAS isn't really going to give you much.

You either mirror the drives for safety. Or you stripe them for speed.

Those low end dual drive systems tend to be under powered.

A dual drive system is a bit safer than one drive but there is a chance (likely a good chance) that both drives fail at once. If you are hoping for speed you still need to add a backup system.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the TrueNAS idea. I may use that in my Acer AC100. It's going to be just network storage for my system here. It will have 4 8tb drives for now, but moving to 18tb drives in the near future. I am still trying to see if I can add a small ssd to put the OS on to keep the hot swaps pure storage with no OS.

I have only had one drive fail in all my years of using and building computers. It was a Seagate SSHD. Worked decently when I had it running, but crapped the bed about 6 months later. got the replacement, and put it into the 2007 macbook I owned and sold it.

Click to expand...

the last 2 drives I had problems with were seagate

now I'm looking at WD (Western Digital)

any better recommendations for a consumer (ie inexpensive) hard-drive?

thanks

The only other company left is Toshiba. I guess they've actually changed name now but I think the drives are still labeled Toshiba.

WD took over Hitachi. I think it was them. I forget who bought IBM's business. Fuji? No idea where that went.

Chris Noble said:

NickZ2016 said:

Or a few days of video. We are at the point that 2TB CFe cards are common with video users. 1TB is almost entry level.

Click to expand...

I don't trust single drives. You can assume that they will always fail, it's just a matter of when.

Click to expand...

But here's the thing - there are plenty of risks with RAID, too. Viruses, accidental deletion, power hits, etc. etc. So even with RAID you still need to do backups.

And if you do backups, then a drive failure isn't all that big a deal. You just restore from a backup.

So what you're buying with RAID is continuous uptime with no need to restore after a drive failure. You're NOT buying freedom from backups.

If you run a business or are engaged in some sort of activity where downtime costs you, then RAID is the way to go. But absent that, running RAID just because drives are not 100% reliable may be the wrong advice. Especially if that advice causes someone to buy a bunch of drives and put them into a RAID set instead of buying a bunch of drives and using the extra ones for backup.

Sean Nelson said:

But here's the thing - there are plenty of risks with RAID, too. Viruses, accidental deletion, power hits, etc. etc. So even with RAID you still need to do backups.

Click to expand...

we've talked about this....way too many times. Snapshotting protects against many of the items you list here. And it certainly should be attached to a UPS.

Sean Nelson said:

So what you're buying with RAID is continuous uptime with no need to restore after a drive failure. You're NOT buying freedom from backups.

Click to expand...

You're also buying a hell of a lot of protection against loss for all file changes between backups. And the funny bit here - the more often you backup, the more vulnerable your backup is to all of those dangers you listed prior.

Colin Creevey said:

See my other post. If you are not running other services like plex, then RAM is pretty much insignificant. Regardless I would recommend a 4 bay over a 2 bay. If you are planning on running a RAID on a 2 bay what would you do? A RAID1? It's a big investment for a single disk worth of data. Get a 4 bay and run a RAID5 IMO.

Click to expand...

better run, run raid 10 and not worry if it will survive a drive replacement rebuild. If you're gonna run R5, you really need to run R6, which means you need a 6 drive enclosure.

I prefer a 6 drive with 4 HDDs for R10 bulk storage and then 2 SSDs for random access performance needs. Many of the last generation enclosures give two m2 slots even on their 4 drive models, so you can get that even for the cheaper price. Though don't expect full performance - more likely to max out at 1GB/s. Since that's what 10G can xfer anyway, not a terrible hit.

foot said:

the last 2 drives I had problems with were seagate

now I'm looking at WD (Western Digital)

any better recommendations for a consumer (ie inexpensive) hard-drive?

thanks

Click to expand...

for large bulk storage, the Exos is nearly always going to be the cheapest option, and it's usually one of the the fastest as well. It offers the enterprise level UER (10X15 vs 10^14) and workload rating as well. But....it takes more juice to power, and it makes more noise. It's not something I'd suggest sticking in a NAS on your desk, but rather in closet or the garage.

On my last NAS build, I did hit at the time of a very good WD sale on the Red Pros. Right around Xmas, it was $285 for the 18TB Red Pro, or $15.83/gig, which is typical for the sweet spot pricing (2 sizes below max) for the Exos. But normal pricing for even the Red "Plus" is higher, and the same is true for the Seagate NAS lines.

Sean Nelson said:

Chris Noble said:

I don't trust single drives. You can assume that they will always fail, it's just a matter of when.

Click to expand...

But here's the thing - there are plenty of risks with RAID, too. Viruses, accidental deletion, power hits, etc. etc.

Click to expand...

Yes, those risks are obvious, so that's not 'the thing". My point was that picking your HDD drive manufacturer based on relative average bare-drive reliability does not reduce the risk to a point that you can assume it won't fail. And average failure rates are just average -- there's a wide distribution. The drive you buy may be more or less reliable than the average for that drive model.

Sean Nelson said:

So even with RAID you still need to do backups.

Click to expand...

Every time someone suggests that a RAID is sometimes better for some primary-storage applications than a single drive, there's someone to bring up the topic that RAID and backup are not the same thing. Yes. The point has been made many time here, and never contested.

Chris Noble said:

My point was that picking your HDD drive manufacturer based on relative average bare-drive reliability does not reduce the risk to a point that you can assume it won't fail.

Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. No drive is trustworthy. Even if a particular model is more trustworthy than another, you still need to mitigate your risk. Loosing your data after 6 years is not more satisfactory then loosing it after 5 years, IMHO.

kelpdiver said:

foot said:

the last 2 drives I had problems with were seagate

now I'm looking at WD (Western Digital)

any better recommendations for a consumer (ie inexpensive) hard-drive?

thanks

Click to expand...

for large bulk storage, the Exos is nearly always going to be the cheapest option, and it's usually one of the the fastest as well. It offers the enterprise level UER (10X15 vs 10^14) and workload rating as well. But....it takes more juice to power, and it makes more noise. It's not something I'd suggest sticking in a NAS on your desk, but rather in closet or the garage.

On my last NAS build, I did hit at the time of a very good WD sale on the Red Pros. Right around Xmas, it was $285 for the 18TB Red Pro, or $15.83/gig, which is typical for the sweet spot pricing (2 sizes below max) for the Exos. But normal pricing for even the Red "Plus" is higher, and the same is true for the Seagate NAS lines.

Click to expand...

the 16 TB red pro...how noisy is it?

if I go with a low-end NAS (synology Synology DiskStation DS120j 1-Bay NAS Enclosure)

I could keep it in a closet.

I've looked at the various configurations re price, and for me this seems like a good deal.

For multi-bay Synology NAS and their price I could buy the 1-bay NAS and 2 x16 TB drives. I could use the 2nd drive as a backup, which I would need anyway

yes I know that the NAS is out of date and (from what I've read) won't have future upgrades. (That's a plus for me!)



for the longer term it's trueNas for me, since it's open source. Plus I can buy better spec hardware for less money than Synology

Question for Synology users...will the box need to "phone home"? I really don't want to by any products, if I can help it, which need to do this

Any thoughts or suggestions?

thanks

Here is what I'm thinking of:

• B&H $99 - "Synology DiskStation DS120j 1-Bay NAS Enclosure" this is very low-end NAS
• pros:
• inexpensive
• BTFRS file system, which is compatable with Linux
• LAN not USB !!!
• more reliable
• can keep it in a closet (to reduce any noise)
• https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod..._qGMIdHHPyP23I6LSqWhoqqxE0l-mzXBoCgc8QAvD_BwE

WD or newegg:

$249 .99 WD Red Pro WD161KFGX 16TB 7200 RPM 512MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive

https://www.newegg.com/red-pro-wd161kfgx-16tb/p/N82E16822234429

They all need software updates. If they don't phone home no updates. If the computer is off the net 100% of the time maybe this is okay. But if you're connecting your machine to the net even occasionally you'll want to google all the attacks on various NAS products. Every one I think depended on old unpatched systems.