casperse

Need 1TB Disc´s for RAID5 system (8 Channel)?

Recommended Posts

Hi All

I am building my own "super storage" for everything, and I wanted this to be extend able when I needed more space.

So I have selected the 3Ware 9650-8Channel IO and a Raidsonic 5 disc chamber with active cooling (I don't care about sound - have small server room).

I only have room for 8 disc´s on my new controller so the biggest disc would be nice to start with.

So I selected the new Seagate 7200.11 1TB disc but out of 4, I ended up with 1 DOA , and another which couldn't be formatted more than 99% then froze with a tick tick sound.

I chose Seagate because the have most experience in the Perpendicular Recording Technology an should be a generation ahead of other company's

So now I have 3 choices:

WD 1TB not so fast (5400rpm or more)

Deskstar 1TB (5 platters use more juice & heat also the first 1TB disc so "old")

Seagate ES.2 model (Build on the same 7200.11 that I had all the problems with more expensive!)

Any help? to which of these disc I should chose?

Best Regards

Casperse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 888
WD 1TB not so fast (5400rpm or more)

You do not need any top speeds for a storage solution! Except when you are building a high-load public server. Anyway, this WD 1TB drive is only little slower than other top-performing ones and it is still faster than Seagate 1TB drive!

Deskstar 1TB (5 platters use more juice & heat also the first 1TB disc so "old")

Older yes but the only one we can say it's time-proved to be a reliable and good one. May be really hotter when in active use but it is up to your storage's cooling solution.

Seagate ES.2 model (Build on the same 7200.11 that I had all the problems with more expensive!)

There's different firmware ES.2 is using, more suitable for storage and RAID solutions. And more carefully tested/selected drives in factory. But yes in construction it is the same drive like 7200.11 and performs pretty similar too.

PS! You may have got just a bad batch of 7200.11 drives, just with shipping/handling problems causing 50% of DOA drives...

Edited by 888

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WD 1TB not so fast (5400rpm or more)

You do not need any top speeds for a storage solution! Except when you are building a high-load public server. Anyway, this WD 1TB drive is only little slower than other top-performing ones and it is still faster than Seagate 1TB drive!

Deskstar 1TB (5 platters use more juice & heat also the first 1TB disc so "old")

Older yes but the only one we can say it's time-proved to be a reliable and good one. May be really hotter when in active use but it is up to your storage's cooling solution.

Seagate ES.2 model (Build on the same 7200.11 that I had all the problems with more expensive!)

There's different firmware ES.2 is using, more suitable for storage and RAID solutions. And more carefully tested/selected drives in factory. But yes in construction it is the same drive like 7200.11 and performs pretty similar too.

PS! You may have got just a bad batch of 7200.11 drives, just with shipping/handling problems causing 50% of DOA drives...

Thanks for you great feedback! :D

You maybe right WD isn't so bad, bud I also wants to future proof my home storage so I can stream HDV from it to more than one room.

And after reading around the web that takes fast 7200 rpm disc´s...

Yes maybe you are right about the bad batch from Seagate but it scared the hell out of me...if I have 2 failed drives then everything is lost. ( I cant afford Raid 6 today maybe in the future :rolleyes: )

Where can I find statistic on the Deskstar 1TB - Yes cooling is okay but the heat in the room could be aproblem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And one more thing you said

You do not need any top speeds for a storage solution! Except when you are building a high-load public server. Anyway, this WD 1TB drive is only little slower than other top-performing ones and it is still faster than Seagate 1TB drive!

How can the WD 1TB be faster when the test shows it only runs 5400rpm? I thought the test showed that segate would be faster in RAID because of the better I/O performance? sorry maybee I misunderstod this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 888
How can the WD 1TB be faster when the test shows it only runs 5400rpm? I thought the test showed that segate would be faster in RAID because of the better I/O performance? sorry maybee I misunderstod this?

RAID and I/O performance are separate things, they are not related. If you are using the RAID setup for home use (only may be 10 simultaneous users doing mostly streaming, some file searching, etc) you must still follow the single user test results: "SR High-End DriveMark 2006" or sometimes even "SR Office DriveMark 2006". But if you are using RAID (or just a single drive - no difference) for front-end hihg-load public server then the I/O performance will be more primary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi All

I am building my own "super storage" for everything, and I wanted this to be extend able when I needed more space.

So I have selected the 3Ware 9650-8Channel IO and a Raidsonic 5 disc chamber with active cooling (I don't care about sound - have small server room).

I only have room for 8 disc´s on my new controller so the biggest disc would be nice to start with.

So I selected the new Seagate 7200.11 1TB disc but out of 4, I ended up with 1 DOA , and another which couldn't be formatted more than 99% then froze with a tick tick sound.

I chose Seagate because the have most experience in the Perpendicular Recording Technology an should be a generation ahead of other company's

So now I have 3 choices:

WD 1TB not so fast (5400rpm or more)

Deskstar 1TB (5 platters use more juice & heat also the first 1TB disc so "old")

Seagate ES.2 model (Build on the same 7200.11 that I had all the problems with more expensive!)

Any help? to which of these disc I should chose?

Best Regards

Casperse

Since sound and performance don't really matter here, I'd just get the cheapest.

IMO if you don't know what you're talking about RE: drive technology (like this drive is older than that one which makes it worse, or this company has more experience with perpendicular recording), you should just avoid that speculation altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since sound and performance don't really matter here, I'd just get the cheapest.

IMO if you don't know what you're talking about RE: drive technology (like this drive is older than that one which makes it worse, or this company has more experience with perpendicular recording), you should just avoid that speculation altogether.

Why do you think I am asking you guy´s ;)

The decision about which drives I buy will have a big impact on the future. I will have to buy the same model and size to extend the volume.

Also if I buy "The biggest 1TB" drive possible then you cant even buy another brand in the same 1 TB size because you would be missing 1-2MB or sectors.

And yes older drives could be better since they have ben tested over time dont know just trying to make a + and - list...

If I decide to also use this homemade NAS in the future to capture HDTV then I do need some god performance on the drives right?

PS : My friend also bought a 7200,11 from another company and also have problems, maybe the importer got a its faulty shipment? I really like Seagate never had any problems with them very very strange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can the WD 1TB be faster when the test shows it only runs 5400rpm? I thought the test showed that segate would be faster in RAID because of the better I/O performance? sorry maybee I misunderstod this?

RAID and I/O performance are separate things, they are not related. If you are using the RAID setup for home use (only may be 10 simultaneous users doing mostly streaming, some file searching, etc) you must still follow the single user test results: "SR High-End DriveMark 2006" or sometimes even "SR Office DriveMark 2006". But if you are using RAID (or just a single drive - no difference) for front-end hihg-load public server then the I/O performance will be more primary.

Thanks for the explanation, but would 3x1TB WD actually be fast enough to stream HDTV contents to maybe 3 places simultaneously?

Also playing around with the idea that this RAID could also be used for some recordings but think I have read somewhere that this takes a really fast drive setup?

Sorry if this is stupid questions...but I don't have a budget to change the setup so I need to buy the right setup, the first time :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 888
would 3x1TB WD actually be fast enough to stream HDTV contents to maybe 3 places simultaneously?

Assuming your HDTV bitrate is standard 15Mbit/s = 1.8MB/s then even every single average (even laptop) HDD can handle 10...30 streams simultaneously (including all seeking and overheads involved).

Also playing around with the idea that this RAID could also be used for some recordings but think I have read somewhere that this takes a really fast drive setup?

If you take RAID5 then yes it will be slow in writing. Sometimes in practise even as low as 2...3 HDTV streams simultaneously only (if to use cheaper or motherboard's crappy RAID contollers. I would better choose RAID1 solution then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For your tasks, you dont have a performance issue. The WD (which IS slower than the seagate btw) will do just fine.

Now, for raid setup, only the 7K1000 has been throughly tested in controllers. You should have checked 3ware compatibility list BEFORE buying the drives.

About the DOA, sorry to hear this, the 7200.10 have been good for me 5/5 healthy and working for months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the explanation, but would 3x1TB WD actually be fast enough to stream HDTV contents to maybe 3 places simultaneously?

Also playing around with the idea that this RAID could also be used for some recordings but think I have read somewhere that this takes a really fast drive setup?

Sorry if this is stupid questions...but I don't have a budget to change the setup so I need to buy the right setup, the first time :D

That depends on two things:

1) How many simultaneous recordings are you going to do?

2) Which resolution and format. The bandwith needed tops at around 30MB/s for h.264 (You will probably record mpeg-2, which bandwith is much much lower).

In short, even a single WD GreenPower is fast enough for realtime HDTV recording. Get at least a core2, btw.

For streaming (i.e read from the server) the bottleneck is the REAL network speed. You need gigabit with jumbo frame and possibly cat6 cables. 3 simultaneous streams of HD content CAN give problems, you need to setup the server to go directly into the switch and from there to each client. 2 simultaneous streams shouldnt be a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 888
Thanks for the explanation, but would 3x1TB WD actually be fast enough to stream HDTV contents to maybe 3 places simultaneously?

Also playing around with the idea that this RAID could also be used for some recordings but think I have read somewhere that this takes a really fast drive setup?

Sorry if this is stupid questions...but I don't have a budget to change the setup so I need to buy the right setup, the first time :D

That depends on two things:

1) How many simultaneous recordings are you going to do?

2) Which resolution and format. The bandwith needed tops at around 30MB/s for h.264 (You will probably record mpeg-2, which bandwith is much much lower).

In short, even a single WD GreenPower is fast enough for realtime HDTV recording. Get at least a core2, btw.

For streaming (i.e read from the server) the bottleneck is the REAL network speed. You need gigabit with jumbo frame and possibly cat6 cables. 3 simultaneous streams of HD content CAN give problems, you need to setup the server to go directly into the switch and from there to each client. 2 simultaneous streams shouldnt be a problem.

Looks like we need to clarify at first which HD content (which bitrate) we are talking about...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_rate#Video_.28MPEG2.29

Video (MPEG2):

16 kbit/s — videophone quality

128 – 384 kbit/s — business-oriented videoconferencing system quality

1 Mbit/s — VHS quality

5 Mbit/s — DVD quality

15 Mbit/s — HDTV quality

36 Mbit/s — HD DVD quality

54 Mbit/s — Blu-ray Disc quality

(note these numbers are Mbit/s here, not MB/s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Video (MPEG2):

16 kbit/s — videophone quality

128 – 384 kbit/s — business-oriented videoconferencing system quality

1 Mbit/s — VHS quality

5 Mbit/s — DVD quality

15 Mbit/s — HDTV quality

36 Mbit/s — HD DVD quality

54 Mbit/s — Blu-ray Disc quality

(note these numbers are Mbit/s here, not MB/s

Exactly the table that I remembered but didnt have the link :)

Oh and sorry for the Mbit/MB mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For your tasks, you dont have a performance issue. The WD (which IS slower than the seagate btw) will do just fine.

Now, for raid setup, only the 7K1000 has been throughly tested in controllers. You should have checked 3ware compatibility list BEFORE buying the drives.

About the DOA, sorry to hear this, the 7200.10 have been good for me 5/5 healthy and working for months.

I actually did check the compatibility 3Ware 9650SE PDF Comp. Drive Test

And since I was sure that I would be using 1TB Seagate it would be fine... ;) Now it seems that the WD 1TB is the one to go with and it would also save some money on the electrical bill :D

But of course the new WD 1000G disk. WD Caviar SE16 WD7500AAKS is not listed on the 3Ware comp. list.... So I guess that I will have to go for the tested Hitachi :unsure:

I have asked there support about the comp. of the WD 1 TB drive...no response yet.

The Raid5 performance for the 3Ware 9650SE should be pretty good but just got the idea that I could use to fast raptors in stripe mode for the heavy HDTV capture things if it is a problem and the 1TB drives for the save storage afterwards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looks like we need to clarify at first which HD content (which bitrate) we are talking about...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_rate#Video_.28MPEG2.29

Video (MPEG2):

16 kbit/s — videophone quality

128 – 384 kbit/s — business-oriented videoconferencing system quality

1 Mbit/s — VHS quality

5 Mbit/s — DVD quality

15 Mbit/s — HDTV quality

36 Mbit/s — HD DVD quality

54 Mbit/s — Blu-ray Disc quality

(note these numbers are Mbit/s here, not MB/s

That would not exceed 2 x 36Mbit/s = 2 HD DVD Quality - And that is only to be on the save side...

But one off my friends said that I could just stripe two fast drives on the same controller for raw capture and transfer it afterwards to the TB storage...but only if I did get write speed problems.

But that dosent seems to be the case even with the WD 1TB disc.

Thanks for that excellent overview of all the bitrates!!! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is another important thing. Seagate comes with 5 years of warranty, WD and Hitachi - just with 3... I was thinking about WD for my server which is co-located (need to add some storage space for online backup, I have in-house server with 6xWD RE2 500GB in RAID6), but I found that Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 ST31000340AS is only $35 in addition (NewEgg.com), but you will get "real" 7200rpm drive and additional 2 years of warranty. And most likely these Seagates will be on the marked long enough in case you want add nore and more to you system. I am not sure about these WD GP, the company may just decide to drop this line if there is no interest... Personally, I'm going in with Seagate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if Hitachi makes 1TB drives in their Ultrastar family...

I just picked up 4 Ultrastar A7K1000s (750GB). They were $20-30 more than the regular 7K1000s...but claim to have a "target MTBF" of 1.2million hours...

hopefully they have the same performance as well, with added reliability! This might be something you want to check out and see if they're available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your house is already wired for networking or you're going wireless (would suggest 802.11n if you are), you may be able to aggregate multiple NICs to increase bandwidth to the switch if your NIC supports it. You just end up consuming more switch ports.

Assuming that you don't plan on playing more than 1 HD stream to any given room, standard cat 5e should do just fine.

If you are planning on streaming more than 1 HD video stream to a given room, you'll need to make sure your switch supports gigabit speeds on all ports, jumbo frames, and use Cat 6 network cable. This will affect your overall cost.

Another option that most people overlook when they start thinking about wiring for networking is to use a great technology called Powerline networking. It doesn't have the fastest speeds, but it *does* turn allow every existing power receptacle in your house to be used as a network port. You do have to buy a hardware accessory for each receptacle, but if wireless isn't an option or you're concerned about security, then you should definitely consider this option.

As far as recording multiple streams, there are several ways to achieve this. You could set up a RAID 1 of two Raptor drives strictly for recording purposes. You could set up the two Raptors in RAID 0 if you don't mind the possibility of losing whatever data hasn't been transferred to your "regular" RAID 5 volume. You could double your hard drive costs and set up a RAID 1+0 array using 4 Raptors.

Using two drives in RAID 1 or RAID 1+0 would give you protection against drive failure. Using two drives in RAID 0 or RAID 1+0 would increase overall capacity (depending on how much you record, you might only run low on space and have to transfer data every two weeks), and sequential writing speed (which means you could record more concurrent data streams of HD video, SD video, internet radio, whatever), but RAID 0 would also increase your risk of the loss of all data that hadn't been transferred to your regular RAID 5 or RAID 6 storage.

I believe that any of those 3 options would be cheaper for you than trying to improve RAID 5 or RAID 6 performance to levels where you could reasonably record multiple streams of data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If your house is already wired for networking or you're going wireless (would suggest 802.11n if you are), you may be able to aggregate multiple NICs to increase bandwidth to the switch if your NIC supports it. You just end up consuming more switch ports.

Assuming that you don't plan on playing more than 1 HD stream to any given room, standard cat 5e should do just fine.

If you are planning on streaming more than 1 HD video stream to a given room, you'll need to make sure your switch supports gigabit speeds on all ports, jumbo frames, and use Cat 6 network cable. This will affect your overall cost.

Another option that most people overlook when they start thinking about wiring for networking is to use a great technology called Powerline networking. It doesn't have the fastest speeds, but it *does* turn allow every existing power receptacle in your house to be used as a network port. You do have to buy a hardware accessory for each receptacle, but if wireless isn't an option or you're concerned about security, then you should definitely consider this option.

As far as recording multiple streams, there are several ways to achieve this. You could set up a RAID 1 of two Raptor drives strictly for recording purposes. You could set up the two Raptors in RAID 0 if you don't mind the possibility of losing whatever data hasn't been transferred to your "regular" RAID 5 volume. You could double your hard drive costs and set up a RAID 1+0 array using 4 Raptors.

Using two drives in RAID 1 or RAID 1+0 would give you protection against drive failure. Using two drives in RAID 0 or RAID 1+0 would increase overall capacity (depending on how much you record, you might only run low on space and have to transfer data every two weeks), and sequential writing speed (which means you could record more concurrent data streams of HD video, SD video, internet radio, whatever), but RAID 0 would also increase your risk of the loss of all data that hadn't been transferred to your regular RAID 5 or RAID 6 storage.

I believe that any of those 3 options would be cheaper for you than trying to improve RAID 5 or RAID 6 performance to levels where you could reasonably record multiple streams of data.

A 1000 thanks for that very thorough information on whats my options! :D

I already have gigabit network supporting jumboframes and would like to upgrade my 2x54Mb WLAN to the N standard when its more mature.

But I think I have to go with a RAID 5 for large storage and backup...and maybee only 2 fast drives in RAID 0 to capture..dot need any mirroring here...no important data.

xSAKx :
I have found Ultra Deskstar 1TB but they cost the same as the Seagate ES model, and I have checked the dealer and he havent gotten any RMA on the ES model sofar?

Also 3Ware havent tested the WD 1TB and cant tell me when they will do it? so have really only 2 choices Deskstar or Seagate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted one large volume, but just read that the 3Ware card have a "Auto-carving" feat. that will carve out anything bigger than 2TB into more volumes also called Multi-LUN.

So my quick question is that if I want to keep adding my 1TB drives on this controller can I have a 7TB drive on a single volume?

I have read that win2003 and XP 64 supports up to 256TB with NTFS...(Don´t know if this also goes for Vista?)

Is anybody here ever tried to make volumes bigger than 2TB?

One more thing I didn't know about :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more thing also would that mean that if I extend my RAID5 with a new 1TB disc then after the 3Ware IO have extended my volume.

I would have to unmount the drive letter in windows and the extend the drive (Already containing data) and since only windows dynamic discs can be extended on the fly - I would have to format it as Dynamic drive NTFS with GPT to get over the 2TB limit correct?

So many thinks I didnt know about "Online expansion of Raid setup and use in windows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If your house is already wired for networking or you're going wireless (would suggest 802.11n if you are), you may be able to aggregate multiple NICs to increase bandwidth to the switch if your NIC supports it. You just end up consuming more switch ports.

Assuming that you don't plan on playing more than 1 HD stream to any given room, standard cat 5e should do just fine.

If you are planning on streaming more than 1 HD video stream to a given room, you'll need to make sure your switch supports gigabit speeds on all ports, jumbo frames, and use Cat 6 network cable. This will affect your overall cost.

Exactly. The bottleneck is not the drive speed in HD streaming but the REAL network speed.

iSCSI could help, but i'm not sure how to setup it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now