TPreston Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 A NAS is for mass storage to be used by multiple users at once. A PC HDD is made for local storage and one user at a time. Is this not obvious? The drive dosnt know or care about the above its the MTBF that matters if its going in a NAS and you use RAID5 as most still do because they suck you've got much bigger problems to worry about (RAID 5 not being dependable anymore with high capacity drives) and getting a poor mans SAS drive wont solve this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jones111 Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 WD Red drives are just fine. They are made to run 24/7 and are quite adequate for NAS usage. However, if you really want to play with the real stuff, you should try the Western Digital RE or Western Digital SE series. The RE drives have about 1,200,000 hours of usage before the fail and they do read a lot more data until they try to read a block that can't be recovered. Please read here for more information. http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.aspx?id=580#Tab1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stokkolm Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 The drive dosnt know or care about the above its the MTBF that matters if its going in a NAS and you use RAID5 as most still do because they suck you've got much bigger problems to worry about (RAID 5 not being dependable anymore with high capacity drives) and getting a poor mans SAS drive wont solve this. That's what I'm saying. It's not that good Seagate drives such, it's just that they weren't made for the use that they're getting in his Synology. WD Red's were actually made for that purpose which is why he's not having any issues with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Berry Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 The HGST Deskstar NAS drives are, in my opinion, the best currently with WD Reds coming in close second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPreston Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 That's what I'm saying. It's not that good Seagate drives such, it's just that they weren't made for the use that they're getting in his Synology. WD Red's were actually made for that purpose which is why he's not having any issues with them. http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/SpecSheet/ENG/2879-771442.pdf wd reds are rated for 10^14 URE with 4x4tb that gives you a 27.8% chance of a successful rebuild essentially useless, Which is my point address tihis problem with double parity. It doesn't matter if you use WD reds the problem is still there better off getting regular drives and doing raid6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stokkolm Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/SpecSheet/ENG/2879-771442.pdf wd reds are rated for 10^14 URE with 4x4tb that gives you a 27.8% chance of a successful rebuild essentially useless, Which is my point address tihis problem with double parity. It doesn't matter if you use WD reds the problem is still there better off getting regular drives and doing raid6. We've reached a consensus, although depending on how old his Synology is it may not support RAID-6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Depicus Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 A NAS is for mass storage to be used by multiple users at once. A PC HDD is made for local storage and one user at a time. Is this not obvious? So can you explain how a hard drive for a NAS would allow multiple users at once ? Is there some new technology I've not heard of that allows a HD to read more than one byte of data at a time ? TPreston 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stokkolm Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 So can you explain how a hard drive for a NAS would allow multiple users at once ? Is there some new technology I've not heard of that allows a HD to read more than one byte of data at a time ? Are you asking ridiculous questions for a reason or are you serious with them? I can't tell. In case it's the latter I'll indulge you. It's simple really, the more people that are reading/writing to and from a volume the more read/writes it will be required to endure. A standard consumer hard drive has a lower MTBF, which is fine since on a standard workstation only one user is reading or writing to it at one time. When you have multiple users accessing data off of a NAS (because it's typically shared storage) the disk usage will be exponentially higher, hence the need for drives that have higher MTBF values. It's not about the disk being able to read more than one byte of data at a time. It's about the sheer number of reads/writes it must endure over the course of its life. In a desktop or laptop, that number will be a lot lower over a given period than drives in a shared storage appliance such as the OP's Synology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Depicus Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Are you asking ridiculous questions for a reason or are you serious with them? I can't tell. In case it's the latter I'll indulge you. I ask because you started off sounding like you had no idea what you were talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stokkolm Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 I ask because you started off sounding like you had no idea what you were talking about. Are you satisfied? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odom Member Posted February 22, 2015 Member Share Posted February 22, 2015 I wish you would stop generalising things I wrote and take them to the point as I wrote them. All I was saying was that I didn't agree with your sentence that consumer grade hard drives don't last more than a year or so. I proved you otherwise in my case. If you're doing a lot of reading and writing consumer grade hard drives are not going to last more than a year or so. All I said was that the MTBF is calculated for a specific drive or model, not on where you decide to end up using it. If you buy a WD Red it comes with a specified MTBF by WD. This value will still be the same, regardless whether you put it into a desktop, a NAS or an external enclosure. Different drives have different MTBF. And if you calculate how long an MTBF nowadays actually lasts, the value is so high (in years) that, as a consumer, you wouldn't really care. Chances are that you would have replaced the drives multiple times until you actually reached the MTBF. If you don't see the difference then why would you go with HDD's indicated for NAS usage? I know there is a difference, but I don't know exactly what it is. I know it is on a technical and design level. But if it makes you happy, I can quickly google for an article that explains the difference better than I can. TPreston and Depicus 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Depicus Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Are you satisfied? I think you are not always right but I don't think you are an idiot Stokkolm 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiretap Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Are you satisfied? If you just post fact based arguments with studies, links and raw data to back it up, your generalizations would not be questioned as harshly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts