Jump to content

  • Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo

Do I start buying 8TB archive drives or not?


Best Answer Christopher (Drashna) , 12 December 2015 - 09:21 PM

To clarify here (and mark as answered):

 

The Seagate Archive drives get great read speeds. But beacuse of how they work, they get atrocious write speeds.  

 

They're great for long term storage, "sneaker nets" and for the pool.  

 

But if you do use them with the Pool, you don't want them to be written to first. You will want to use the SSD Optimizer to write to other drives first. Be it SSDs or spinning HDDs.  

 

This way, you get good write speeds to the pool, and StableBit DrivePool will handle the horrible writes. And considering that StableBit DrivePool uses a background priority for file transfers, and it runs in the background, invisibly, this may work out VERY well. 

 

 

You can get the SSD Optimizer Balancer here:

https://stablebit.co...ivePool/Plugins

 

 

 

 

As for performance:

For reads, I got about 160-190MB/s from the drives, consistently. (using large, sequential files, and using 64k allocation unit sizes when formatting the disk).

For writes, closer to 80MB/s but would stall frequently during writing, decreasing the overall speed.

Go to the full post


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#21 propergol

propergol

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 80 posts
  • LocationFrance

Posted 15 December 2015 - 08:06 PM

Yes Red are very power efficient, maybe the best of all HDD but if I use half number of HDs...

RED 4TB :

Peak : 1.75A

Read/Write : 4.5W

Idle : 3.3W

Sleep : 0.4W

 

Seagate Archive 8TB :

Peak : 2A

Read/Write : 7.5W, normalized to 4TB = 3.75W

Idle : 5W, normalized to 4TB = 2.5W

Sleep : 0.9W, normalized to 4TB = 0.45W

 

4 RED : 7A, 18W, 13.2W, 1.6W

2 Seagate : 4A, 15W, 10W, 1.8W

 

I know things are more complex (1 Red read/write will be better than 1 Seagate archive read/write) but....

 

 

Edit : @Christopher talking about SSD plugin by any chance, did you find the time to make it not using always the same SSD when multiple SSDs are used?

Maybe my solution is to simple to work but if the plugin could just randomly choose one of the SSDs this would help to reduce wear occuring always on the same SSD ;-)



#22 Umfriend

Umfriend

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 372 posts

Posted 16 December 2015 - 07:29 AM

You have triple duplication? Wow...

 

Anyway: "general purpose like storing family pictures/movies that can be sometimes deleted, created."... but pictures will, I assume, be "small"? In the MBs, not tens of them? Movies, say a decent .mkv rip might be what, 4GB at most? Writing those occasionally would not cause the write penalty. You would need to write at east 20GB in one go before you might experience it and I *think* that the PMR-cache gets written to the SMR-arrea pretty quickly once there is no I/O.

 

Wrt. power consumption, those are rated numbers and given how close they are, actual measurement would be nice. But yes, if you have a lot of writes then you'd need a more difficult statistic as the Archive will suffer from a kind of. I guess we can call it, write-amplification indeed.



#23 Christopher (Drashna)

Christopher (Drashna)

    Customer and Technical Support

  • Administrators
  • 8,203 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA, USA

Posted 28 December 2015 - 12:51 AM

I have quadruple duplication for my Folder Redirection folder (the user folders for domain user accounts). :)

 

But that's about 40-50GBs. 

 

And I have everything duplicated personally.

 

 

As for exact power consumption, well, grab a kill-a-watt meter and compare the wattage before and after powering on the drive.  If you do the math, you can identify the estimated usage (you may want to disable stuff like speedstep, or change the power management options to disable it, so you can get an accurate reading).

 

 

Edit : @Christopher talking about SSD plugin by any chance, did you find the time to make it not using always the same SSD when multiple SSDs are used?

Maybe my solution is to simple to work but if the plugin could just randomly choose one of the SSDs this would help to reduce wear occuring always on the same SSD ;-)

Did you mean this issue:

http://community.cov...che/#entry10689

 

 

If so, then no, not yet. Alex has been working on CloudDrive and bug fixes, so we haven't gotten to a lot of the non-critical issues yet. We know it's been ... well, too long, and we want to get to all (or most) of the pending issues soon. But there is only so much that we can do.

 

 

As for the specific issue... since I have taken a fresh look at the issue, it may just be a lack of randomization. If there are three identical drives, I suspect that the driver will always use the first disk enumerated. (by chance is the SSD in question, the lowest numbered one?).  However, it may be possible that the System Volume Information folder is taking up more room on one disk than other, and causing it the algorithm for selecting the disks to pick that specific disk over the others.


Christopher Courtney

aka "Drashna"

Microsoft MVP for Windows Home Server 2009-2012

Lead Moderator for We Got Served

Moderator for Home Server Show

 

This is my server

 

Lots of "Other" data on your pool? Read about what it is here.


#24 propergol

propergol

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 80 posts
  • LocationFrance

Posted 28 December 2015 - 06:48 PM

Yep, sorry, I did forget you already did flagged it for Alex, my bad  ;)



#25 Christopher (Drashna)

Christopher (Drashna)

    Customer and Technical Support

  • Administrators
  • 8,203 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA, USA

Posted 28 December 2015 - 08:12 PM

Yep, sorry, I did forget you already did flagged it for Alex, my bad  ;)

Well, there is aboslutely no problem with reminding us. :)


Christopher Courtney

aka "Drashna"

Microsoft MVP for Windows Home Server 2009-2012

Lead Moderator for We Got Served

Moderator for Home Server Show

 

This is my server

 

Lots of "Other" data on your pool? Read about what it is here.


#26 Arghhh

Arghhh

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 15 February 2016 - 09:11 PM

I use two of the Seagate 8TB archive drives for an unduplicated backup pool from my media server.  99% of the data is write once and I will saturate my network link.  I have my pool set up to keep free space the same on both drives so usually it will alternate writes between the two drives giving them more opportunity to do their background processing and rewrite shingles if needed.  I didn't do a full disk check or write and read zeros to the drives before I put them in use.  I heard this may make the drives consider any future write as a rewrite and make the speeds slower.  For media or backup they work perfect.

 

I run a robocopy mirror script from the network shares to the pool nightly and so far it's the easiest backup solution I have found.


  • Christopher (Drashna) likes this

#27 Umfriend

Umfriend

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 372 posts

Posted 18 February 2016 - 07:53 AM

As I backup my Server to those Archive drives, I can tell you that having been written to once does not mean you get hit by the write penalty. Somehow, the HDD does track what is occupied and what is not and if you can get sequential writes to clean tracks then it writes like crazy as well (for a spinner).

 

On the other hand, if it gets filled up and needs to replace a lot, then it really kills. I have had Server Backups that took somewhat over 24 hours for little over 4TB of data.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users