or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › Mfusick's How to build an affordable 30TB Flexraid media server: Information Requested.!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mfusick's How to build an affordable 30TB Flexraid media server: Information Requested.! - Page 92

post #2731 of 3368
5400 are plenty for htpc storage. If they are good price/gb then get them.
post #2732 of 3368
Thread Starter 
having two cards only requires a motherboard with dual x8 slots. Any decent motherboard should do this, especially on socket 1150. I have a Z77 Asrock Extreme 3 I paid $99 for it and it came with 8GB free of Gskill 1600mhz CAS9 Ripjaws Ram. Works great for me, but you probably want 8 sata ports (mine has 6) so you can get to 24 bays easier without a 3rd card.
post #2733 of 3368
New board is the Microcenter deal

Asrock Extreme 4 and i5-4670k and I already have 8gb of Corsair ram for it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

5400 are plenty for htpc storage. If they are good price/gb then get them.

Thanks and in case there haven't been a million already saying this your guide is FANTASTIC. Well done and thought out!

Greg
Edited by GCS - 2/1/14 at 11:38am
post #2734 of 3368
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

5400 are plenty for htpc storage. If they are good price/gb then get them.

Not to re-hash the same old debate but my comment were suggesting there is a difference between "plenty for HTPC storage" (which I do agree with) and a faster drive having benefits in Flexraid. That was all I was suggesting. I once had 12 different 5400rpm drives when I started this thread, and having removed almost all of them (one 3TB left) I repurposed the RMA replacements I got back from WD as HTPC storage. Because you are right, it is enough for HTPC storage. My brother and parents HTPC each have 2 WD GREENS inside them for local storage and they are great for that task.
post #2735 of 3368
Well after going back and forth with this all day I went ahead and grabbed a 1015 card from ebay for $94. Had to buy a full size bracket as well for another $8 but ehh I can live with that.

Drive wise I found this today for $99 http://www.microcenter.com/product/406838/3TB_7,200_RPM_SATA_60Gb-s_35_Internal_Hard_Drive_PH3300U-1I72

Would really like to go 4TB but this is super tempting. The best 4TB deal I can find is 5 used ones for about $600 but no warranty as they were pulls from external boxes.

My only issue is that the 6 4TB Seagates would allow me to move ALL of my data (I am just under 24TBs used up) I would need to order at least 1 more 4TB for 1 parity drive. That would only be 7 drives for about $750.

Getting enough 3TB drives would require me to buy at least 9 drives (again only one parity) for the same capacity = $900

That would be $150 more for NEW drives with 3 year warranty instead of 0 warranty and they would be 7200 rpm (which as I know everyone says isn't that big of deal).

Hmmm ....
post #2736 of 3368
Thread Starter 
I would get the brand new Toshiba models (7200rpm) with the warranty. They are fast, and they are Hitachi rebadges so they likely should have great endurance and hold up well for the task you want them for. More 3TB's that are 7200's will be faster and higher performance, but you might want to get a 4TB for your parity drive so that in the future you can add 4TB drives if you wanted. Just a thought. I have this now.

Time wise, it takes longer if you have 4TB drives to to parity tasks because there is an extra 1TB of information to handle, and if you add 1TB of info and you also use a slower drive that will have a negative effect on time it takes. This might not be a big deal, but this was my biggest fear with adding a slow 4TB drive to my system. The Seagate 4TB @ 5900rpm seem to do pretty well speed wise if you get the ones with 1TB platters, so that might be an option.

I'd feel more comfortable with a drive with a warranty, and even more comfortable that is a Hitachi rebadge made at the WD plant that makes the RE and enterprise lines. $99 for that hard drive seems like a good deal, I bought one for that price and I like it a lot, it's nearly as fast at the Seagate 7200.14 (which is the king) and it has an extra year warranty too. Cheap and fast and a good warranty is always attractive to me.
post #2737 of 3368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I would get the brand new Toshiba models (7200rpm) with the warranty. They are fast, and they are Hitachi rebadges so they likely should have great endurance and hold up well for the task you want them for.

How do you come to that conclusion? I seem to recall you making some statements to the effect that judging a drive's reliability based on brand (and not data specific to that model) was a bad thing to do (or maybe that was just when defending Seagate... I dunno)

Do you know what model of Hitachi was rebadged as a Toshiba, and is there data to support that model as particularly robust, or ware you just making generalizations based on brand?

Here's one quote that seems to conflict a little with your above notion...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Warranty and brand preference and voodoo tactics have no real meaningful place in hdd reliability. They are all basically the same. When people worry about reliability of a hard drive I tend to laugh and always think to myself how much better off they would be with the cheaper hard drive and using some of that cash saved for a solid back up plan instead. This also brings a lot less fear and anxiety and a lot more piece of mind.

Edited by ajhieb - 2/1/14 at 3:23pm
post #2738 of 3368
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajhieb View Post

How do you come to that conclusion? I seem to recall you making some statements to the effect that judging a drive's reliability based on brand (and not data specific to that model) was a bad thing to do (or maybe that was just when defending Seagate... I dunno)

Do you know what model of Hitachi was rebadged as a Toshiba, and is there data to support that model as particularly robust, or ware you just making generalizations based on brand?

Every reliability study I have ever seen has basically placed Hitachi at the top of the pack, and the fact they provide a MTBF rating that is double that of WD or Seagate and they also provide a 5 year warranty makes me just feel this way. The 5 year warranty is particularly strong if you get it- because you a certain you will have a working drive for 5 years. Hitachi has always focused first on reliability and enterprise, and there is a natural trickle down effect.

The Hitachi 3TB (7k4000) would be the Hitachi version of that Toshiba 3TB, but I have not seen Toshiba 4TB 7200rpm drives yet at all. The previous older Hitachi version was the 7k3000. Same as Hitachi there are 4 platters at 750GB each on the 3TB drives. I would assume if Toshiba brings a 4TB it would be the 800GB platters, with 5 like this one: http://www.microcenter.com/product/425448/Deskstar_7K4000_4TB_7,200_RPM_SATA_60Gb-s_Internal_Hard_Drive_-_Bare_Drive

The evidence Hitachi is somewhat high endurance and reliable from the backblaze study was substantial IMO. It was clearly ahead of the pack.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2197780/toshiba-uses-western-digitals-plant-to-make-3tb-hard-drive

Part of the deal with WD buying Hitachi's enterprise division and intellectual property was that Toshiba got the rights and long term leases to make the consumer desktop models(WD did not get Hitachi desktop business), and operate as independent for regulatory reasons.
Quote:
The drives beginning with the HDKPC08 serial number are rebadged Hitachi (HGST) HDS723030BLE640 units. In the past we have tested 3GB HDS723030ALA640 drives, which are an older revision. With the A6, we have native 512 blocks, while with the B6, the blocks are native 4K and feature 512 emulation.

http://www.madshrimps.be/articles/article/1000432/Toshiba-DT01ACA300-3TB-Hard-Disk-Drive-Review/5#ixzz2s7RRIIvt
post #2739 of 3368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Every reliability study I have ever seen has basically placed Hitachi at the top of the pack, and the fact they provide a MTBF rating that is double that of WD or Seagate and they also provide a 5 year warranty makes me just feel this way. The 5 year warranty is particularly strong if you get it- because you a certain you will have a working drive for 5 years. Hitachi has always focused first on reliability and enterprise, and there is a natural trickle down effect.

Which models were involved and which model are you talking about. Reliability studies about other models aren't great for making generalizations about other drives.

And what double MTBF and 5 year warranty are you talking about. You previously linked to a consumer grade 7200rpm drive with a 3yr warranty and 1Mhr MTBF rating, then later linked to an enterprise Hitachi drive and claimed the 2Mhr/5yr numbers. I want to make sure we're talking about the same drive.

What 3/4TB consumer Toshiba/Hitachi drive has a 2Million hr MTBF and 5yr warranty?

This is where you tried to misrepresent the warranty and MTBF of the consumer Hitachi drive.
Quote:
The evidence Hitachi is somewhat high endurance and reliable from the backblaze study was substantial IMO. It was clearly ahead of the pack.

"it?" What "it?" If you're talking about the Toshiba (rebranded Hitachi) "it" wasn't a part of the backblaze study. You were the one poopooing people that were trying to draw conclusions about drives not included in the study. Why the change of heart now? Didn't you just post a link on here to an article that was claiming the backblaze study to be lacking in credibility?


Quote:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2197780/toshiba-uses-western-digitals-plant-to-make-3tb-hard-drive

Part of the deal with WD buying Hitachi's enterprise division and intellectual property was that Toshiba got the rights and long term leases to make the consumer desktop models(WD did not get Hitachi desktop business), and operate as independent for regulatory reasons.

hat article seems to indicate that Toshiba is selling rebranded WD (Black and Green) drives, not rebranded Hitachis. So again, I'm not sure how you draw the conclusion that a random Toshiba drive is going to be more reliable because WD bought Hitachi. There is a huge disconnect there that you aren't addressing.
Edited by ajhieb - 2/1/14 at 4:30pm
post #2740 of 3368
Trended out though the Hitachi is not statistically that significant of a difference from wd who you despise based on this study which you now hold with some credence, apparently.
post #2741 of 3368
Thread Starter 
I'm not sure what else to tell you.

Toshiba drives are rebranded Hitachi drives, made at the WD plant (which also owns HGST [Hitachi] )

There is some conclusions you might make about the Toshiba being good, since the Hitachi models have traditionally been very good.

The recent backblaze study showed this pretty clear I thought.



There was some dispelling of the blog here : http://www.avsforum.com/t/1515424/dispelling-backblazes-hdd-reliability-myth-the-real-story-covered/0_100
Specifically pointing out a lot of errors in the data, and some defense for Seagate being the first and oldest drives and the ones used in the original POD enclosures that were later revised and improved twice for vibration and heat dissipation concerns. The article basically is trying to suggest the Seagates did the worst because they were the oldest and subjected to the harshest conditions, while the newer drives were younger and installed into the better environments in the revised storage pods and since there was a clear difference there the data is not that strong.

But, If you notice HITACHI drives were used heavily and for a long time and still had the very best reliability. Probably because they are a trickle down product of Hitachi enterprise and they have good vibration resistance, but I'm just guessing at that.

Backblaze did test over 25,000 hard drives in this study : http://blog.backblaze.com/2014/01/21/what-hard-drive-should-i-buy/




And the Hitachi was a substantial enough number, while the WD was mostly 1TB versions totally different than the 2TB/3TB/4TB models people are buying now. They only test 346 WD RED's and only with average age of .5 years, so in my opinion that is not long enough or enough drives to draw a substantial conclusion.

The same for Toshiba which they only tested 58 hard drives, and average age only .7 years. Not enough data IMO.

But if we look at the 12,956 Hitachi models with average age of them being 2 years old I think this is enough data to draw a conclusion. If you were going to draw any conclusions at all from that study and blog it would be that Hitachi are good. (at least those Hitachi models) That conclusion makes more sense to me than any conclusion you could make about Seagate, WD, Toshiba or Samsung.
Quote:
If the price were right, we would be buying nothing but Hitachi drives. They have been rock solid, and have had a remarkably low failure rate.



That is thousands of each model Hitachi and every single model had a lower failure rate than any other brand/model combo.





It's hard to make a strong conclusion from the limited amount of WD drives they used, and the 1TB GREEN's they used don't really apply to today's WD drives so that would be a major jump to make.

But the Hitachi seems like it might translate and suggest Hitachi is pretty reliable.

I have seen a few other studies showing Hitachi was tops in reliability previously too, and aside from the "deathstar" model that was notoriously bad (flawed) I have generally always viewed Hitachi as a great HDD maker. My gut tells me the best, but again this is all subjective opinion that no one can prove either way with certainty.

I think what sucks is there is such a limited amount of data on all this stuff that the consumer ends up needing to make so many judgement because no clear answers exist.

I can't say with authority Hitachi is high endurance, so at the end of the day it's each buyers own decision. But Toshiba being a rebadge of Hitachi models is probably a postive, and not a negative IMO. That is what I was suggesting.
Toshiba 7200rpm based on Hitachi design and made in the WD plant for $99 is good deal if you ask me. I think he would do well with those.

If he wanted a 4TB model I think for $169 the Hitachi 4TB makes the most sense since it's 7200rpm, it's 2million MTBF rated and it has 5 year warranty. For $169 I am not sure you can get much cheaper, perhaps a WD GREEN (yuck) or a Seagate 4TB (only 5900rpm too) and both have only 2 year warranty. A WD RED would likely cost as much ($169) and it's only 5400rpm, only 3 year warranty and only 1million MTBF rated.

The study had lots of problems, but if Hitachi is shown reliable I am not sure you can discount that. If the study and data was more ideal, would that somehow lower Hitachi reliability ? I don't see how. The jury might still be out on WD and Seagate, it seems Seagate was disadvantaged, and WD isn't widespread enough to draw a strong conclusion. But Hitachi was, and the conclusion is obvious to me.

Can we get back to helping GCS pick out his hard drives ?


That was really the important thing going on. I think those Toshiba are a good choice for under $100 each. That's all I was saying. There is lots of reasons to think so. I also think the 4TB Hitachi with 5 year warranty for $169 is a good deal here : http://www.microcenter.com/product/425448/Deskstar_7K4000_4TB_7,200_RPM_SATA_60Gb-s_Internal_Hard_Drive_-_Bare_Drive

But $70 for 1 more TB is a lot. But it's a 4TB and a Hitachi and has a 5 year warranty so if you were going to spend the money on a 4TB drive I would think that beats out a Seagate or a WD pretty clearly.
post #2742 of 3368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I would get the brand new Toshiba models (7200rpm) with the warranty. They are fast, and they are Hitachi rebadges so they likely should have great endurance and hold up well for the task you want them for. More 3TB's that are 7200's will be faster and higher performance, but you might want to get a 4TB for your parity drive so that in the future you can add 4TB drives if you wanted. Just a thought. I have this now.

Time wise, it takes longer if you have 4TB drives to to parity tasks because there is an extra 1TB of information to handle, and if you add 1TB of info and you also use a slower drive that will have a negative effect on time it takes. This might not be a big deal, but this was my biggest fear with adding a slow 4TB drive to my system. The Seagate 4TB @ 5900rpm seem to do pretty well speed wise if you get the ones with 1TB platters, so that might be an option.

I'd feel more comfortable with a drive with a warranty, and even more comfortable that is a Hitachi rebadge made at the WD plant that makes the RE and enterprise lines. $99 for that hard drive seems like a good deal, I bought one for that price and I like it a lot, it's nearly as fast at the Seagate 7200.14 (which is the king) and it has an extra year warranty too. Cheap and fast and a good warranty is always attractive to me.

Thought u don't believe warranty matters---just buy the cheapest whatever Seagate.

What are people to believe?
post #2743 of 3368
Wow didn't mean to touch off a battle here, sorry.

Just happened to be thinking out loud I guess and thought the Toshibas were a good - the warranty does have a bearing on the deal IMHO. 3 years vs 0 (the used seagates I mentioned).

Greg
post #2744 of 3368
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by t-c View Post

Thought u don't believe warranty matters---just buy the cheapest whatever Seagate.

What are people to believe?

I think this is subjective. I've made this comment before (warranty does not matter) but it was in reference to comparing a 2 year and a 3 year warranty from one drive and another, in which case the extra 1 year warranty was coming at a difference of $20+ which to me make no sense.

Specifically I was making that comment about the WD RED having 3 years, and the GREEN or the Seagates only having 2 years, while the RED was costing a premium. I don't think that extra year from year 2 to year 3 really matters much. I never lost a drive in my life in that age. It has always been before 2 years, or after 3 years.

5 years I think is a different story. 5 years is nothing to dismiss easily, it's a long time. I have had plenty of drives fail on me and had replaced that had 4 and 5 year warranties. I think the chance you might actually use a 5 year warranty is much, much greater than a 3 year warranty. I think you use a 2 year and a 3 year about as often, usually for issues in the first year.

Warranty's are important in the fact that they guarantee you will have a working drive for that time. But what warranties don't do is make a drive more reliable, it does not mean it won't fail. I would not pay more than $5 extra for a 3 year warranty versus a 2 year, but I would be inclined to spend $10-20 more for a drive with a 5 year warranty. I guess I am wishy washy on this one. If the warranty is long enough it has a value to me, but generally I won't let 2 years or 3 years or the difference of them sway my decision much. It's probably less than a $5 value to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCS View Post

Wow didn't mean to touch off a battle here, sorry.

Just happened to be thinking out loud I guess and thought the Toshibas were a good - the warranty does have a bearing on the deal IMHO. 3 years vs 0 (the used seagates I mentioned).

Greg

Don't worry it's not you. I take a lot of heat for my heresy against WD 5400rpm drives. Too many brain washed WD fanatics that can't admit generally the WD5400rpm drives are a poor choice (unless they are the cheapest they are) and I think I offend a lot of people with my negative comments about them.

I do agree with you the warranty does have a bearing, and especially when you compare 0 versus 3 rather than 2 versus 3. If the Seagate came with 2 years and the Toshiba or WD came with 3 years I would be telling you warranties don't matter, but compared to no warranty- I think they do matter in this case.

Just like a 5 year warranty might matter too. The chance you use a warranty is greatest inside the first year, or after the 3rd year. Everyone knows this. Any warranty inside this period has a low value IMO, but beyond it there is value. Certainly if no warranty versus 3 years, there is value there too. That's worth $20 a hard drive IMO.
post #2745 of 3368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I'm not sure what else to tell you.

Toshiba drives are rebranded Hitachi drives, made at the WD plant (which also owns HGST [Hitachi] )

There is some conclusions you might make about the Toshiba being good, since the Hitachi models have traditionally been very good.

Can I conclude that since Seagates have been not very good traditionally, that they are not very good now? You pick and choose stats to try and reaffirm what you already believe, and simply ignore everything else that is contrary. It's like you've taken the scientific method and done everything backwards. ¡ƎƆNƎIƆS


Quote:
The recent backblaze study showed this pretty clear I thought.

The recent backblaze study didn't look at nearly enough different models of drives to make broad generalizations about entire brands of drives. At least not to a reasonable person grounded in reality anyway.


Quote:
I have seen a few other studies showing Hitachi was tops in reliability previously too, and aside from the "deathstar" model that was notoriously bad (flawed) I have generally always viewed Hitachi as a great HDD maker. My gut tells me the best, but again this is all subjective opinion that no one can prove either way with certainty.

Hasn't stopped you from repeating it as if it is true though has it?


Quote:
I think what sucks is there is such a limited amount of data on all this stuff that the consumer ends up needing to make so many judgement because no clear answers exist.

Yet you very clearly draw conclusions, don't you?


Quote:
I can't say with authority Hitachi is high endurance, so at the end of the day it's each buyers own decision. But Toshiba being a rebadge of Hitachi models is probably a postive, and not a negative IMO. That is what I was suggesting.

But you did try to say it with authority. That's the problem.


Quote:
The study had lots of problems, but if Hitachi is shown reliable I am not sure you can discount that. If the study and data was more ideal, would that somehow lower Hitachi reliability ? I don't see how. The jury might still be out on WD and Seagate, it seems Seagate was disadvantaged, and WD isn't widespread enough to draw a strong conclusion. But Hitachi was, and the conclusion is obvious to me.

The only thing obvious to me is that you're cherry picking data trying desperately to support your beliefs, without even entertaining anything that might contradict them. That's what is obvious.
post #2746 of 3368
If I could afford a case full of the Hitachi 7k4000s I would do it but alas that is not in the budget. For $900 I can get 9 of the 3TB Toshibas (supposedly Hitachi drives) with 3 year warranty = 27TB. At $900 I can only get 5 of the 4TB 7k4000s yielding 20TBs, still only a 3 year warranty though but 20TB gives me no parity and not enough room to move everything.

Wish they 7ks were a tad cheaper.

Of course I would be using less drives to reach 24tbs (6 4tb vs 8 3tb) but not sure just how much the power savings would be either.

And the 5400 vs 7200 thing is not as big a deal to me. Quality drives at a good price are however.

Ehh I am beating myself up over this whole thing ... I just need to pick something, buy what I can and move on. As Nike says ... Just Do It!
post #2747 of 3368
I dunno, you say one thing and then the other. Seagate then Hitachi, No warranty then warranty.

Whats to be believed?
post #2748 of 3368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

It seems like you are at odds with me, always trying to defend WD 5400rpm and poke holes in my opinion on them. I think the matter is clear enough at this point you don't need to break down every post with 15 quotes. GSC asked me for an opinion and I gave it to him. WTF is wrong with that ?

See... there you go dragging brand it to it again. YOU are the one that wants to keep turning this into some sort of crusade about brands. No one else is.

I continue to point out why generalizing about 5400rpm drives is dumb, and you keep trying to turn it into an argument about WD. You're the only one on here that seems to have any agenda. Stop projecting. It's unhealthy.
post #2749 of 3368
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajhieb View Post

Don't be so smug. Yes, I'm sure you'd like that... just like Hitler would have been happy had the same thing happened to the Jews.

ah there it is: Godwin's law

this is a forum...this is where people are looking for advice. people willing to put the time in to help can give their advice. that's based on personal experience. he can have his opinion, you can have yours. quit the fkn nitpicking.
post #2750 of 3368
Thread Starter 
It's not about brand, it about spindle speed. You seem to think that it's likely that a 5400rpm spindle speed is going to have better performance than a 7200rpm, and so on that notion you think it's senseless for me to generalize on them ? Show me a 5400rpm spindle speed drive that will beat a Seagate 1TB platter 7200rpm, or a Hitachi, or a modern 1TB WD 7200rpm, or a 7200rpm Toshiba and I will stop making that genralization and apologize. Until this happens you can't say I can't generalize because I've never seen it. I think slowing down the spindle speed is a poor decision. Period stop.

It started a year ago when you guys flamed me for loving the 3TB 7200.14, and no one wanted to see how it was nearly as good in power and heat and noise as a 2TB or 3TB GREEN/3TB RED at the time (before WD had 4TB available) and yet significantly better performance and significantly cheaper priced.

This sums up pretty much what I have consisently been saying on the subject: (best if I don't use my own words since you will automatically just dismiss it and challenge this)

Quote:
Platter density has been the crutch of hard drive makers in recent history. Increasing spindle speeds can reduce random access latency, but at the expense of cost and thermals. Improvements in random access performance via increasing spindle speed pale in comparison to what is possible with solid state storage, not to mention that driving motors at speeds beyond 10,000 RPM becomes quite difficult. The focus on increasing platter density is also difficult, but higher density platters can actually lead to reductions in power consumption rather than the opposite (through a reduction in the number of platters per drive). There's also the fact that if you can cram more data on a single platter there's a direct impact on sequential accesses.

Yesterday Seagate announced its transition to 1TB platters with its new 7200RPM-only Barracuda line. The move marked a significant change for Seagate as it is phasing out the Barracuda Green brand, and shifting the focus of the high-performance Barracuda XT. The Barracuda Green was a rebrand of Seagate's Barracuda LP, designed to convey the lower power consumption enabled by its 5900RPM spindle speed.

Seagate decided that the performance loss of moving to 5900RPM wasn't justified by the power savings. It believed that by introducing a more power efficient 7200RPM drive it could deliver the best of both worlds, negating the purpose of the Green line. For most desktops, Seagate has a point. The couple of watts you save by slowing down the motor aren't really realized in a system that idles at 60W and can consume over 100W under load. On the other hand, the performance drop is definitely noticeable. Hard drives have pretty bad random access performance to begin with, and slowing spindle speed isn't going to help.

Now this is from the green tree hugging Anand Lal Shimpi from Anandtech, whom is well known for his appreciation for energy efficiency, and someone whom I rarely agree with, and I would imagine would not share my views on desktop storage.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5042/seagates-new-barracuda-3tb-st3000dm001-review

So bottom line is unless you can prove that generally I am wrong about the slower spindle speed being lower performance, then it's ok for me to generalize this is true. If a specific scenario comes up where apples to apples the slower spindle speed is better performance at the same platter density than I guess I would stop generalizing. But you can't tell me to stop generalizing if what I say is generally true.
post #2751 of 3368
mfusick, i think these guys just dont care that it's lower performance. they are fine with it being good enough.
post #2752 of 3368
I have shown him those examples as well. He doesn't care.

And I thought mfusick "doesn't hate" wd? Apparently it is obvious now that his previous statement regarding this was not correct.

This is a forum, true. But its a A/V science forum which is quite a bit different than a typical forum where you can just spout off whatever you want and not be expected to be called out on it and provide actual data and fact.
post #2753 of 3368
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajhieb View Post

I have never, EVER said anything even REMOTELY like that, you big fat liar. I really don't know what else to call you at this point since it's clear your willing to blatantly lie to try and save face. STOP LYING. I SAID NO SUCH THING.
Calm down Amy, calm down... Have a glass of wine before you have a coronary.
post #2754 of 3368
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcain View Post

Calm down Amy, calm down... Have a glass of wine before you have a coronary.

Lol, I laughed hard.

It's just hard drive advice guys. Let's relax.

How come it seems like I'm the only one that ever posts advice or data? Seems like I'm always the one talking about actual products, posting charts, posting benchmarks, posting links with prices, posting professional reviews, all in support of MY OPINION.

He asked for opinion and some help, and I didn't see anyone else offer anything substantial. Let's talk about the topics and not about me. If you have a different opinion than mine try expressing it, and defending with data, rather than just tearing down mine please everyone. Bickering about me or my expression of my opinion doesn't help anyone and it's boring.
post #2755 of 3368
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aliaskary77 View Post

mfusick, i think these guys just dont care that it's lower performance. they are fine with it being good enough.

There's nothing wrong with this.

I just wish they spent as much time and effort talking about hard drives or something productive rather than trying to tear me down.

If that's their opinion they could state that, and explain why they feel that way. If balancing out against my opinion is the goal I'd think doing that would be more effective than trying poke holes in mine. They only seem like asses trashing someone else's opinion.

I really don't see the big deal if I hate slow low performance hard drives for Flexraid. Is that really a big deal? Is it actually wrong ?
post #2756 of 3368
Its wrong if you state it like a globally accepted fact that these drives are unsuitable for anything, like you always do.
Opinions are fine, but you also have to express them like opinions, and not shout them across the world like facts - which is exactly what everyone hates about you.
post #2757 of 3368
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevcairiel View Post

Its wrong if you state it like a globally accepted fact that these drives are unsuitable for anything, like you always do.
Opinions are fine, but you also have to express them like opinions, and not shout them across the world like facts - which is exactly what everyone hates about you.

I don't think I said any of that. I never said unsuitable or wouldn't work. I only expressed they are less ideal and not my preference. And if they are not significantly cheaper then generally they are a poor choice. I said all that as opinion, not as fact. I explained why I feel this way, and even provided data.

I haven't seen anyone actually do the same either.
post #2758 of 3368
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCS View Post

If I could afford a case full of the Hitachi 7k4000s I would do it but alas that is not in the budget. For $900 I can get 9 of the 3TB Toshibas (supposedly Hitachi drives) with 3 year warranty = 27TB. At $900 I can only get 5 of the 4TB 7k4000s yielding 20TBs, still only a 3 year warranty though but 20TB gives me no parity and not enough room to move everything.

Wish they 7ks were a tad cheaper.

Of course I would be using less drives to reach 24tbs (6 4tb vs 8 3tb) but not sure just how much the power savings would be either.

And the 5400 vs 7200 thing is not as big a deal to me. Quality drives at a good price are however.

Ehh I am beating myself up over this whole thing ... I just need to pick something, buy what I can and move on. As Nike says ... Just Do It!

I definitely hear what you are saying. Cost is probably the biggest part of the equation on any hard drive purchase, especially when buying a lot of them. $10 or $20 each might seem worth the stretch on one hard drive, but if you are buying 9 hard drives that's a big jump and difference in cost.

I think you would be super happy with that Toshiba for $99. I have one and I like it. It's a good hard drive for that price, and unless something was an equally good value there isn't much else to worry about.
post #2759 of 3368
This is what I was doing at 2am this morning. Playing with REAL storage. You guys and your lame boxes of rotating rust... cool.giftongue.gif

post #2760 of 3368
Wow, what is that?, and how much did it cost?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Home Theater Computers
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › Mfusick's How to build an affordable 30TB Flexraid media server: Information Requested.!