Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/12/13 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    Put them in a server and run some sort of SDS on top of it like Nexenta. Fun learning experience and gets you a cheap SAN.
  2. 2 points
    Note the three years in between though...they've been surprised by the interest in the platform I think. Now, if WD could just get those 2.5" Reds up to 2TB in a 9.5mm...
  3. 2 points
    Long-time watcher of StorageReview, but I registered just to be able to comment on this review. An excellent review, though your testing seems a bit high-end for the likely intended usage. I'd bet the majority of the target users for this SOHO device won't have a backbone that supports iSCSI or even dual-port aggregation. As you point out, 2-10 users in a casual / small office setting or for home use seems a likely audience. Such an audience would be much more likely to have an entry-level GbE switch as opposed to a managed backbone that costs 10x more. To that point, I've used the entire line of BlackArmor devices, and there are three critical issues common to them that seem to be repeated with the replacement Business Storage line... none of which are mentioned in the review, but they may not impact everyone so I'm not sure they necessarily bear mentioning up-front. 1) Performance. You obtained okay numbers in your testbed, but as summarized above, I doubt you'd see that infrastructure in the wild. I'd suggest you at least pair it with testing results from a cheapo GbE switch using a single LAN plug and simple Windows file sharing / disk mapping. Unless the BS line has markedly improved from the BA line, you'll see performance on the order of 15 MB/s read, 10 MB/s write. Horrendous for anything but backups, really, which is all I use my BA boxes for. Also, I recognize that there's a massive disparity of price points and target audience, but I get 110 MB/s--TEN TIMES the performance--from my Synology boxes, and 50-70 MB/s from my Drobos. And that's on a cost-conscious backbone of entry-level GbE switches using one LAN port per device and simple, iSCSI-less file sharing in Windows. There's no comparison at all. 2) Compatibility. Massively overpriced with disks, the BA and BS line are very reasonable when purchased diskless. I've used Buffalo, Seagate, Synology, and Drobo NAS boxes in small-business and personal settings, and diskless BA/BS boxes are far and away the cheapest way really of adding reliable (but not fast!) NAS storage in such contexts. But these NAS boxes only support Seagate disks. True, this is a Seagate device, but it seems as though someone had to intentionally code a rejection routine into the firmware, which is just kind of an obnoxious move. In addition, some of the compatibility notes for "certified drives" listed for the BA line are flat-out falsified--the diskless BA 400 will simply NOT work with the 1.5 TB desktop line of Seagate disks, period. 3) Risk. For those who know what they're doing, these are fairly easy boxes to deploy, and the web-based UI is second only to Synology's in my experience. But it's easy, far too easy, to make a catastrophic mistake. For example, if you set up a BA box using one LAN port, and then try to plug in a second LAN plug, it will not only not work, but it has a strong chance of corrupting the entire array, forcing you to not only lose all data and set everything up again, but in order to even begin to do so, you must eject each disk individually and reformat it using a separate computer. Otherwise it won't set itself up. Now, much of my comments above are from my experience with the older BA boxes, but I'd like to know if those issues have been resolved with the replacement BS line. Anyway, as always, I love seeing info on Storage Review.com so keep up the good work!
  4. 2 points
    You're almost right here. What's missing is that copying small files, even from the same directory, will automatically include some random access too. The files being read may be spread across the disk, they may be written different locations, filling up holes in the current file structure (what ever the OS see fit) and the MFT may be accessed. That's why multi-threaded copy for higher queue depths still improves throughput: the disk can arrange the accesses better through NCQ and can reduce access times. BTW: if the folders you're copying are often the same I'd look into incremental sync'ing with e.g. DirSync (nice freeware). Not sure it can increase QD, but it certainly saves time not to transfer untouched files again. And I'm not a fan of buying large SSDs for storage, that's often a waste of money (IMO). I'd rather use the SSD for temperary storage and as automatic cache. If you're concerned with many small files an SSD would be ideal. And if the SSD cache also buffers writes you may see a massive speed increase. The cache capacity would also be huge compared to the amount of storage required for small files MrS
  5. 1 point
    What Progressive Capacity means is that WD can use odd-formatted platters in drives in boxes of 20 drives to hit a specific capacity point, like 1PB. The capacity of the drives within that box to hit a 1PB target are somewhat irrelevant, data centers looking at this class of drive often are not using RAID and are more concerned about capacity in a specific footprint. WD Ae Cold Data Storage HDDs Announced
  6. 1 point
    The Synology DiskStation DS414 is a 4-bay NAS targeted at SMB and consumers looking for a powerful NAS with a competitive price. The DS414 has a max capacity of 16TB (4TB HDD x 4) and features a Dual Core 1.33 GHz processor, 1GB of DDR3 RAM, and Synology’s DiskStation Manager (DSM) software. The device also sports USB 2.0, USB 3.0, and two Gigabit LAN ports. The DS414 has four tool-less, hot-swappable bays accessed beneath the front panel for quick drive swap out. Running Synology’s award-winning OS, the device allows seamless file-sharing across multiple platforms. Synology DiskStation DS414 Review
  7. 1 point
    I'd suggest a new install of Windows to the SSD if you can manage it. It's really much cleaner that way. The files can then just be copied over. Of course there's some pain in reinstalling apps and such, but you'll end up with a much cleaner starting point.
  8. 1 point
    The purpose of cache vault is to replace the battery model with something that can last longer due to the flash memory and capacitor. It is not accessible to the card or the volumes on the card for use as a cache. The capacitor allows the card to keep the data that was sitting in the card cache ram viable in a crash and can write it out to disks when power is restored. I think that any amount of cachecade wild be nice even if it were mlc. It helps buffer more read/write at faster seeks. Just checking, did you get all the pieces? I think the cachevault is on the card but the caps are on a second card and cable. I think that is how my 9271 is.
  9. 1 point
    Whatever you think, brainiac. Your opinion is your opinion. My opinion is fact.
  10. 1 point
    Millions of computers rely on SSD for the system drive, there's no need to fear it. Back up regularly and you're in good shape should something go bad. HDDs fail without warning too. Red is not advisable or supported in PC. 5K vs 7K is probably less relevant for you in terms of large sequential reads and writes.
  11. 1 point
    I'd get the cheaper one, you're not going to notice any difference. The interface is just an upgrade to the more modern SATA standard, but in single drive configs like this, there's no material difference that you can feel. For $70 though you can get a 120GB SSD and offload the rest to cloud storage or a NAS. Something to consider...
  12. 1 point
    Does anyone know what the story is with the published endurance figure for the M550 drives? It's 72TB of data written, but that same figure applies to all capacities of the drive. So for a 128GB drive that equates to 562.5 full drive writes (ignoring write amplification). But for the 1TB drive, 72TB is only 72 drive writes. Is the NAND used in the 1TB model really that bad?
  13. 1 point
    You're already sad with the Drobo performance, trust me, it's not any better now, so I'd mark that off the list promptly. In terms of NAS vs DAS though, how many people or devices will need to access the storage? Do you see any benefit from the NAS features like remote file access, etc or do you really want the performance DAS offers by comparison? Both the LaCie and G-Tech products are very nice incidentally. There are also other options form the likes of Caldigit and others who have quality products as well.
  14. 1 point
    lol! We don't really care what a mfg would rather we do, but we do what we obviously believe is best and I think Samsung is anyway quite happy with the 840 EVO being the world's best seller and the 840 PRO following as 2nd best seller for many months in a row. Bottom line is, the drive is being used in both environments and gaining more and more popularity in the enterprise while no-one actually tested it in a professional review recently and certainly nobody did any enterprise review on the drive and it did supposedly improve a lot since launch, so I believe a refresh of the old review or a new review of this drive would be a good idea which will prove to be quite a popular and unique place on your website...
  15. 1 point
    TLC, at least Samsung's version, appears to be the solution to the price/capacity battle for consumer SSD. It's not inherently evil and keeps the price of SSDs under control. I'd guess we'll see more of it soon as the other majors struggle to catch up to Samsung, who's clearly dominating in this space.
  16. 1 point
    Synology has announced the launch of the RS3614xs+, the latest in their XS+ rackstation line. The new RS3614xs+ provides enterprise features at SMB prices so that small businesses can now take advantage of performance, scalability, and the virtual storage options of VMware, Citrix, and Hyper-V all the while still offering general-purpose storage that businesses require. Synology RS3614xs+ Rackstation Announced
  17. 1 point
    You're very welcome. When I was doing those measurements, I was mostly interested in confirming the difference in upstream bandwidth between PCIe 1.0 and PCIe 2.0 chipsets, using one 6G controller and one older 3G controller. As such, I didn't do every possible measurement in a proper experimental matrix and that's why those graphics appear to be somewhat "spotty". Also, because there are so many PCI-Express motherboards installed worldwide, I put a little extra focus into exploring how easily it was to achieve high speed with PCIe 1.0 chipsets. What became very clear is that 2 x modern 6G SSDs in a RAID 0 array come pretty close to reaching MAX HEADROOM with a PCIe 1.0 chipset: roughly 2 @ 500 = ~1,000 MB/second (certainly above 900). There is no performance gain to be expected from 4 x 6G SSDs with a PCIe 1.0 chipset. The "sweet spot" was predictably 4 x 6G SSDs with a PCIe 2.0 chipset and a 6G controller like the Highpoint RocketRAID 2720SGL: that measurement was done on an ASUS P5Q Deluxe motherboard with an Intel Q6600 CPU. I really do enjoy working on that workstation, because regular file system operations are truly SNAPPY, particularly program LAUNCH. The other, less obvious issue was the lack of TRIM with these RAID 0 arrays; and, that's why I'm recommending that builders take a close look at Plextor's garbage collection for PCs that lack TRIM for some reason. The folks at xbitlabs.com produce a very useful comparison here: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/storage/display/toshiba-thnsnh_5.html#sect0 Incidentally, in our workstations that have 2 or more PCIe slots, we've been installing RAID controllers in the primary x16 slot; and, some of the older PCIe motherboards complain a little about that setup: I need to press F1 to finish POST and STARTUP; but with that minor exception those PCIe 1.0 chipsets still work fine with a RocketRAID 2720SGL installed in the primary x16 slot. Many less experienced Highpoint users stumble on the INT13 factory default: what they need to do is install the card withOUT any drives attached, and flash the card's bios to disable INT13. Then, the card won't interfere with chipset RAID settings. THE problem is that INT13 ENABLED on the 2720SGL has been known to DISABLE on-board RAID functionality e.g. it's like the chipset's ICH10R isn't even there at all! The solution is to revert the BIOS to IDE or AHCI modes, and sometimes IDE is the ONLY setting that will work again after the 2720SGL is installed with INT13 ENABLED. Also, the latest bios needs to be flashed, in order to operate the SATA channels at 6 GHz (using SFF-8087 "fan-out" cables). ... all "bleeding edge" lessons, to be sure :-) Hope this helps.
  18. 1 point
    We have a 470 that's almost done, waiting on final results with SSD and 10GbE card. We haven't done as much with QNAP as others mostly because the uptake here is so much lower. We'll see how it goes though with a few reviews and decide where to go from there.
  19. 1 point
  20. 1 point
    The Samsung mobile guys still live on within Seagate.
  21. 1 point
    For those interested in the main product images and spec sheets we have in hand:
  22. 1 point
    Effective queue depth is ThreadsxQueue... although it looks like the label on that chart is wrong. For HDD sequential its 1T/4Q.
  23. 1 point
    I don't think you'll find much market for a used SSD, I wouldn't buy one, but maybe you can...I just don't know. As to what to buy, depends on your budget, I'd probably lean toward the Samsung EVO for best of both worlds.
  24. 1 point
    you overpayed, a $15 cable would suffice for anything shorter than ~6ft for 1600x1200. If somebody needs these, maybe ebay would be the best place to sell them.
  25. 1 point
    Hello all, I'm looking for a good multi-purpose proxy server for the sole intention of self-education. Preferably, ones that do both packet filtering and caching. I've got myself an old P3 box that I've installed FreeBSD in and have spent a good two weeks tinkering with ipfw packet filter software among other things. I think it's about time that I upgrade a notch further with proxies. I've checked Squid but at this point, I would prefer an all-rounder. A few additional queries : 1) Why do *most* if not all, streaming packets (videos, mp3s etc.) travel over UDP not TCP? I notice that it has something to do with UDP's stateless protocol but I couldn't make that one out. 2) As in (1), why *in general* does a UDP connection is considered a security issue? 3) This may sound a little stupid but how do a DoS attack happen? For the knowledgables, I hope you can contribute something to this thread. Thank you in advance.