WD 2TB Caviar Black - No Raid in Mac Pro?

[lbeck]

I've heard from a few reviews of amazon users that any non Enterprise WD drive made in 2010 does not support any RAID Configs?

Is this true? I was going to get the 2TB Caviar Black but I want it set up as a RAID 0.

If this is true, then what decent 2TB drive will support RAID configs?

[cnstoll]

I am 99.999% sure this is not true.

I'm using the Hitachi Deskstar 7200 2TB drives in a RAID-1 configuration and they seem to be doing great. Those are also non-enterprise drives.

My old 1.5TB RAID-1 in my Power Mac G5 was with Cavier Black drives, so yea, I can't believe they wouldn't work.

[Grimace]

Umm...no. You can RAID any drives that you want. If you are talking about performance, that is where some drives will differ.

[cnstoll]

I am 99.999% sure this is not true.

I'm using the Hitachi Deskstar 7200 2TB drives in a RAID-1 configuration and they seem to be doing great. Those are also non-enterprise drives.

My old 1.5TB RAID-1 in my Power Mac G5 was with Cavier Black drives, so yea, I can't believe they wouldn't work.

[lbeck]

Do any of you have a 2010 WD Caviar Black drive and know that Raid 0 works? I searched on google and its all ver the place, supposedly the new drives from WD that are not evterprise drives do not support RAID configs.

Western Digital now claims that using the WDTLER.EXE tool on newer drives can damage the firmware and make the disk unusable. The WDTLER.EXE tool is no longer available from Western Digital, and new disks will not be able to have the TLER setting changed. RE disks are only suitable for RAID arrays and Caviar are only suitable for non-RAID use. The utility still works for older disks.

[philipma1957]

I have 10 1.5tb caviar blacks from 2009 they all run as raid0 but I don't own any 2010 ones. pm me if you want some 1.5tb blacks.

[lbeck]

I have 10 1.5tb caviar blacks from 2009 they all run as raid0 but I don't own any 2010 ones. pm me if you want some 1.5tb blacks.

Supposedly it only affects 2010 drives. I'm looking on WD site and cant find anything about it supporting RAID configs.

[lbeck]

Just called WD support and they said that they do not support or recommend using NON ENTERPRISE drives in any raid config. They said you can set it up as RAID 0 but they do not recommend it and do not gurantee that it wont fall off the RAID config. They said it has been known to fail when set up in RAID config, but only the newer 2010 models. So anything made in 2010 is like that. I cant believe it, that sucks.

What other manufacturer had drives comparable to WD?

[reebzor]

There is a difference between a company not supporting it (warranty wise), and it not being possible to do...

That being said, I have 4 Caviar Green drives in a RAID 5

[lbeck]

There is a difference between a company not supporting it (warranty wise), and it not being possible to do...

That being said, I have 4 Caviar Green drives in a RAID 5

Very true, but it makes you think twice if the manufacturer says they don't recommend it. Especially considering my data is irreplaceable. I have two backups of everything though.

What does everyone think of he hitatchi 2tb deskstar drive? Its only 32mb cache instead of 64, will I notice a big difference in speed because of that? It's 7200 rpm like the WD drive.

[reebzor]

Very true, but it makes you think twice if the manufacturer says they don't recommend it. Especially considering my data is irreplaceable. I have two backups of everything though.

What does everyone think of he hitatchi 2tb deskstar drive? Its only 32mb cache instead of 64, will I notice a big difference in speed because of that? It's 7200 rpm like the WD drive.

I think they do it to cover their butts and to make you spend more money on the enterprise drives. I'm sure that the Caviar drives are not equipped for enterprise level throughput in like a SAN environment, but a desktop RAID or SOHO NAS, they should be fine. Plus, the whole point of RAID is redundancy. I rather have a redundant array of inexpensive disks rather than one of expensive disks :D

[jav6454]

Non-Enterprise WD drives lack TLER, which makes RAID arrays stay together. Regular consumer drive will work from time to time, but they are not always 100% reliable.

[lbeck]

Non-Enterprise WD drives lack TLER, which makes RAID arrays stay together. Regular consumer drive will work from time to time, but they are not always 100% reliable.

So theree is a good chance that one would fail if set up as raid 0?

[jav6454]

So theree is a good chance that one would fail if set up as raid 0?

Yes. If you check the reviews on many retailers you will see people having success and other having drives dropping out of the array entirely and/or destroying the array.

[cutterman]

Non-Enterprise WD drives lack TLER, which makes RAID arrays stay together. Regular consumer drive will work from time to time, but they are not always 100% reliable.

Very true, especially in the context of multiple drives and hardware controllers.

However, I think the OP just wants to do software Raid 0 with 2 drives. I would not think the failure rate of that configuration is any higher than the failure rate of one drive, which is not particularly high. That being said any Raid 0 array should be backed up frequently.

I say go for it. Raid 0 is a nice way to improve performance, and software RAID should not impose undue vibrational stress. Just be sure you have good and frequent backups. If there is some particular problem with the 2010 drives, which I have not heard prior mention of, set up your array and stress test it for a while.

[Transporteur]

To be honest, I've been using software RAID zeros with my Mac Pro and different WD drives that don't have TLER for more than a year now and never had a drive dropping out of the arrays.

With a hardware RAID controller, I totally agree that TLER enabled drives are the way to go, but the software RAID which is implemented in OS X seems to handle non TLER member drives pretty well.

[cutterman]

One additional thought- 4TB is a large volume to set up as RAID 0. What are you using this for?

[goMac]

Very true, but it makes you think twice if the manufacturer says they don't recommend it. Especially considering my data is irreplaceable. I have two backups of everything though.

If your data is irreplaceable, then it's a very bad idea to run with RAID 0 in a four drive config with any brand of drive. The more drives you have in a RAID 0, the higher your possible failure rate is. At least you have backups...

With regards to the WD drives, I recall hearing about this sort of issue with some Seagates as well. Basically it's a bug on the firmware of the drive.

[666sheep]

Manufacturer prefers to sell RE versions of drives. As mentioned above, with SW RAID it's no difference enterprise vs consumer drive, game begins when you wan to create hardware array.

[jav6454]

I have a P6X58D-E motherboard (custom Win7 PC). I'll tell you this much, many of us (same motherboard users) experience problems with non-TLER enabled drives. Software RAID makes it easy, but that still doesn't mean it won't fail. Under RAID 0, I would not even consider a non-enterprise drive. Specially if it's the boot data.

True nothing may happen, but you live without peace of mind, which I am willing to pay in technology. Also, remember people the general rule of tech; be cheap now, bite you in the ass later.

[666sheep]

Specially if it's the boot data.


True, but nowadays there's no reason to boot of RAID volume. SSDs are much better for that purpose.

When RAID 0 isn't your boot drive (storage only) and you have backup(s), danger of data loss is reduced to minimum IMO.

[lbeck]

If your data is irreplaceable, then it's a very bad idea to run with RAID 0 in a four drive config with any brand of drive. The more drives you have in a RAID 0, the higher your possible failure rate is. At least you have backups...

With regards to the WD drives, I recall hearing about this sort of issue with some Seagates as well. Basically it's a bug on the firmware of the drive.

I didn't realize that RAID 0 was at a higher risk for failure. I use it for my business, I'm a multi-media designer and photographer so I have very larger files and lots of them.

I liked the idea of having my OS look like its one drive for all my business files but if its not as secure then maybe I'll just not use any RAID at all. MY external backup system is Mirrored RAID 1 so I have two backups of everything.

So do you recommend not using RAID 0 then? If I dont use RAID 0 then my backup process will take longer since CCC can only backup one drive at a time, right? I'd have to back up one drive, then go to the next and next. Or is there an easier way to do that?

[jav6454]

True, but nowadays there's no reason to boot of RAID volume. SSDs are much better for that purpose.

When RAID 0 isn't your boot drive (storage only) and you have backup(s), danger of data loss is reduced to minimum IMO.

Exactly, the cost of building a RAID 0 array is the same as buying a decent SSD and booting from it. Not only that, but you get a 99.99% reliability and much faster IO speeds.

[Transporteur]

Not only that, but you get a 99.99% reliability and much faster IO speeds.

99.99% reliability with an SSD? I'd really like to see the source for that number!

Sorry, but only because you don't have moving parts any more, doesn't mean the drive is not likely to fail any more.
SSD's do fail (even before their estimated life cycle), so a proper backup is still mandatory, regardless of which kind of drive technology you use.

[nanofrog]

I've heard from a few reviews of amazon users that any non Enterprise WD drive made in 2010 does not support any RAID Configs?
It's to do with the recovery timings established in the drive firmware. The consumer models (i.e. Blacks) have a 0,0 (read, write in seconds respectively), as the recovery is handled by the OS (disks attached to the ICH or a simple SATA controller card).

The enterprise versions have different timings (7,0), as the recovery is meant to be handled by a RAID card (it takes over this function from the OS, as the card operates differently = necessity).

Previously, all a user had to do, was get hold of the TLER utility, and adjust consumer drives (this was common with Green versions for data center use, as there weren't any RE versions available in the past). This has now changed (when the RE4-GP came out), so they've now locked the firmware settings in the consumer models = forced to buy the enterprise models for RAID cards (REx or REx-GP), since it's no longer possible to adjust the firmware settings. They make more money this way.

The TLER utility will still work on the RE versions of the drives (no need to lock it here for profit reasons), as there may be instances where the timings may still need to be adjusted for stability reasons.

As per consumer disks and RAID cards, it won't be stable if you can even create the array (completes initialization), as disks will keep droping out (random).

But if the drive will be attached to the ICH (SATA ports included in the base system), then consumer units such as the Caviar Blacks will be fine, as they're not attached to a RAID card. The RAID functions are also part of the OS, located within Disk Utility.

So in your case, you'd be fine running the Caviar Blacks. If you go to a RAID card at a later date, you'd also need to get new disks (enterprise versions) for it, but the consumer disks can be used for backup purposes for example (i.e. run an eSATA card + Port Multiplier enclosure).

Hope this clears things up. :)

Non-Enterprise WD drives lack TLER, which makes RAID arrays stay together. Regular consumer drive will work from time to time, but they are not always 100% reliable.
Consumer disks are fine on the ICH or simple SATA/SAS card. But when a proper RAID card is involved, the timings aren't sufficient, and drop-outs occur (unstable as hell = massive aggravation, and possibly data loss if the backup was re-deployed with the same problem simultaneously).

To be honest, I've been using software RAID zeros with my Mac Pro and different WD drives that don't have TLER for more than a year now and never had a drive dropping out of the arrays.

With a hardware RAID controller, I totally agree that TLER enabled drives are the way to go, but the software RAID which is implemented in OS X seems to handle non TLER member drives pretty well.
Exactly for both cases. ICH or simple SATA/SAS card vs. proper RAID card respectively.

If your data is irreplaceable, then it's a very bad idea to run with RAID 0 in a four drive config with any brand of drive. The more drives you have in a RAID 0, the higher your possible failure rate is. At least you have backups...

With regards to the WD drives, I recall hearing about this sort of issue with some Seagates as well. Basically it's a bug on the firmware of the drive.
IF a user has a proper backup system in place, and can afford the time for recovery (fix the disks, restore the data from backups, and re-perform any missing work that occured between the most recent backup and time of failure), it's fine.

But in cases where the user's time is too valuable (can't spare it), then other levels (some form of redundancy) would be necessary.

BTW, no form of RAID can replace the need for a backup system (level doesn't matter; things can and do happen = data loss on the primary array).

Exactly, the cost of building a RAID 0 array is the same as buying a decent SSD and booting from it. Not only that, but you get a 99.99% reliability and much faster IO speeds.
Capacity requirements could matter here (i.e. need more capacity than SSD's could provide for say $200USD or so, and usage is primarily large files = sequential throughput dominant), but in terms of overall performance, I'd agree that SSD is a faster way to go, especially for random access throughput.

[lbeck]

Thanks nanofrog!

So basically I'd be ok with using some Black Caviars in RAID O on my MacPro since I'm using Disc Utility to set them to RAID 0. Right?

Also, will a drive failure happen more often if I use RAID 0? I prefer my drives be set up to look like one drive, its easier to manage/search through finder as well as backing up using CCC. But if the percentage is higher for drive failure in RAID 0 then it may not be a good option.

BTW, I agree about SSD's, I have my OS and apps on an OWC 120GB and I love it. I wish I could store all my data on SSD's, but the capacity/cost ratio just isn't good.

[dknightd]

So basically I'd be ok with using some Black Caviars in RAID O on my MacPro since I'm using Disc Utility to set them to RAID 0. Right?

probably

Also, will a drive failure happen more often if I use RAID 0? I prefer my drives be set up to look like one drive, its easier to manage/search through finder as well as backing up using CCC. But if the percentage is higher for drive failure in RAID 0 then it may not be a good option.

The chance of disk failure is the same, but now if either disk fails you've lost everything - so the change of the virtual disk failing has doubled (or more if you have more physical disks in it)

Edit: but if you want your storage to appear in one large volume, with safety in case a disk should fail, then you are looking at parity based raid (something like raid5) which really should be done with "enterprise" drives. Although some vendors will happily sell you a raid5 using "desktop" disks. Perhaps the raid controller they use is more tolerant of a disk "misbehaving"?

[lbeck]

probably



The chance of disk failure is the same, but now if either disk fails you've lost everything - so the change of the virtual disk failing has doubled (or more if you have more physical disks in it)

Edit: but if you want your storage to appear in one large volume, with safety in case a disk should fail, then you are looking at parity based raid (something like raid5) which really should be done with "enterprise" drives. Although some vendors will happily sell you a raid5 using "desktop" disks. Perhaps the raid controller they use is more tolerant of a disk "misbehaving"?


Probably scares me. Hoping for a definitive yes.

Didn't realize that about raid 0. I thought that if one drive failed the other would still be ok. If that's the case then failure rate is definitely double. That sucks.

[philipma1957]

Probably scares me. Hoping for a definitive yes.

Didn't realize that about raid 0. I thought that if one drive failed the other would still be ok. If that's the case then failure rate is definitely double. That sucks.

I run a 6tb raid0 but i use 4 hdds and a tm to back it up. and even though my raid0 is 6tb in size I have to use less then 2tb more like 1.6tb for easy backups.


http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=11344534&highlight=#post11344534

[dknightd]

Probably scares me. Hoping for a definitive yes.

I won't give you a definitive yes, because in the unlikely event it does not work for you, you might hire a lawyer, and hunt me down :eek:

Didn't realize that about raid 0. I thought that if one drive failed the other would still be ok. If that's the case then failure rate is definitely double. That sucks.
That is the way it works. Loose a disk, loose the data in your raid 0. (I suppose you might be able to recover some of the data, in some of your files, but that is not much use to most people)

That is why you have backups - and NO, raid1 is NOT a backup. The most ANY raid can do is protect you from disk failure.

[lbeck]

I won't give you a definitive yes, because in the unlikely event it does not work for you, you might hire a lawyer, and hunt me down :eek:


That is the way it works. Loose a disk, loose the data in your raid 0. (I suppose you might be able to recover some of the data, in some of your files, but that is not much use to most people)

That is why you have backups - and NO, raid1 is NOT a backup. The most ANY raid can do is protect you from disk failure.

My backup system is an external enclosure set to raid 1. Everything on my mac gets backed up once a day to the external drive, which is only plugged in when I do the backup. That gives me two backups of all my files. If one drive fails in my external then I still have the second drive. Any problems with that?

[dknightd]

My backup system is an external enclosure set to raid 1. Everything on my mac gets backed up once a day to the external drive, which is only plugged in when I do the backup. That gives me two backups of all my files. If one drive fails in my external then I still have the second drive. Any problems with that?

Everybody has a different philosophy on what makes a good backup. And there is no right answer. My experience has been that disk directory errors, and even more often human errors, are more frequent than outright disk failures. You might well end up with two perfect copies of one of these errors. Something to think about. There is no perfect backup scheme, but it is good to know the strengths and weaknesses of each scheme, and pick the one that works best for you. You have a very solid backup - but it is only one backup. At least you have a backup, it is surprising how many people do not.

Did I mention there is no perfect backup scheme?

[lbeck]

Everybody has a different philosophy on what makes a good backup. And there is no right answer. My experience has been that disk directory errors, and even more often human errors, are more frequent than outright disk failures. You might well end up with two perfect copies of one of these errors. Something to think about. There is no perfect backup scheme, but it is good to know the strengths and weaknesses of each scheme, and pick the one that works best for you. You have a very solid backup - but it is only one backup. At least you have a backup, it is surprising how many people do not.

Did I mention there is no perfect backup scheme?

How is it only one backup? I understand both drives in the enclosure are identical but there are two drives, therefor two backups. If one drive fails, then I have the second backup to go off of. Just trying to see ur point

[DoFoT9]

How is it only one backup? I understand both drives in the enclosure are identical but there are two drives, therefor two backups. If one drive fails, then I have the second backup to go off of. Just trying to see ur point
yes but it will only appear as 1 logical disk and partition, therefore being 1 backup :)

in anycase, you can use ANY drive to make a software RAID. it is not recommended to use "green" drives in hardware RAID (or in any RAID for that matter) hehe.

[lbeck]

yes but it will only appear as 1 logical disk and partition, therefore being 1 backup :)

in anycase, you can use ANY drive to make a software RAID. it is not recommended to use "green" drives in hardware RAID (or in any RAID for that matter) hehe.

So to have two "true" backups I would need to have a second enclosure.

[DoFoT9]

So to have two "true" backups I would need to have a second enclosure.
yes - its a stupid technicality really, no need to worry about it haha. the logic being that if 1 drive fails the 2nd drive can be read, but its still going to be seen as a "RAID".

what config were you considering?

[goMac]

The chance of disk failure is the same, but now if either disk fails you've lost everything - so the change of the virtual disk failing has doubled (or more if you have more physical disks in it)

He's looking at 4 drive RAID 0, so his failure potential would actually be 4x.

If you've got backups, you won't necessarily lose data, but your RAID will have to be reformatted/restored.

[lbeck]

I want raid 0 for internal storage and raid 1 for my backups. Works well for me.

[DoFoT9]

I want raid 0 for internal storage and raid 1 for my backups. Works well for me.
ahh wonderful, cant see anything wrong with that then. nice and redundant. just keep the RAID1 away from the MP and disconneted :P

Previously, all a user had to do, was get hold of the TLER utility, and adjust consumer drives (this was common with Green versions for data center use, as there weren't any RE versions available in the past). This has now changed (when the RE4-GP came out), so they've now locked the firmware settings in the consumer models = forced to buy the enterprise models for RAID cards (REx or REx-GP), since it's no longer possible to adjust the firmware settings. They make more money this way.
so basically they are messing us over :( what are the benefits to forcing users to purchase RE over the consumer models, and then changing over the timings?

[lbeck]

Yes, it's unplugged from my macpro

[DoFoT9]

Yes, it's unplugged from my macpro
good man :) sounds like a great setup.

[nanofrog]

So basically I'd be ok with using some Black Caviars in RAID O on my MacPro since I'm using Disc Utility to set them to RAID 0. Right?
Yes, you'd be OK in terms of those disks working, as they're attached to the ICH (I/O Controller Hub) that's soldered to the backplane board, and Disk Utility, which is part of OS X, will handle the RAID functions.

You are running higher risk than a single disk though;
Risk of Total Data Loss for a RAID 0 = n disks * failure rate of a single disk

Also, will a drive failure happen more often if I use RAID 0? I prefer my drives be set up to look like one drive, its easier to manage/search through finder as well as backing up using CCC. But if the percentage is higher for drive failure in RAID 0 then it may not be a good option.
The drive itself, not so much (they can be under additional risk for other RAID levels). But as you're running more than one disk in the set, your risk for data loss is higher (see formula posted above).

And it's the Risk of Data Loss that's important (idea that the data is worth far more than the disk/s that contain it).

Although some vendors will happily sell you a raid5 using "desktop" disks. Perhaps the raid controller they use is more tolerant of a disk "misbehaving"?
FakeRAID controller based solutions; I hate them with a passion, as software implementations cannot handle parity based arrays properly, and they don't make their customers aware of this. :( :mad:

in anycase, you can use ANY drive to make a software RAID. it is not recommended to use "green" drives in hardware RAID (or in any RAID for that matter) hehe.
The enterprise versions would be fine (RE4-GP). In fact, they're used often for backups or even primary locations that can be met with the reduced throughput (power usage is more important = operational expenses).

My backup system is an external enclosure set to raid 1. Everything on my mac gets backed up once a day to the external drive, which is only plugged in when I do the backup. That gives me two backups of all my files. If one drive fails in my external then I still have the second drive. Any problems with that?
Well, if you backup a user error for example, it will be duplicated automatically to both disks.

If you're after redundancy, you'd be better off using it with the primary array (i.e. use RAID 10, as Disk Utility can handle it). Performance would be the same as a 2x disk stripe set, but have a redundancy of n = 2 before total data loss.

Now if your performance cannot be met by that, then you'd need to be looking at a card of some sort (RAID or non-RAID card) and additional disks (probably an external enclosure as well, though depending on the drive count, it may be possible to keep the drives internal in the system).

so basically they are messing us over :( what are the benefits to forcing users to purchase RE over the consumer models, and then changing over the timings?
Well, none of the other disk manufacturers have ever made such a utility available at all. Not even for the enterprise units, so we should be greatful that it lasted as long as it did. :eek: :p

Granted, I know it's not fun that the consumer models are no longer usable, but at least the enterprise disks do have the additional sensors and improved specs to compensate for the additional cost (users are paying for more than just different firmware). ;)

[DoFoT9]

The enterprise versions would be fine (RE4-GP). In fact, they're used often for backups or even primary locations that can be met with the reduced throughput (power usage is more important = operational expenses).

Well, none of the other disk manufacturers have ever made such a utility available at all. Not even for the enterprise units, so we should be greatful that it lasted as long as it did. :eek: :p

Granted, I know it's not fun that the consumer models are no longer usable, but at least the enterprise disks do have the additional sensors and improved specs to compensate for the additional cost (users are paying for more than just different firmware). ;)
im just coming from the angle of costs, and reliability. sure with the consumer model you can change the timins, but i daresay they would not be as reliable, safe, quiet and effective as the RE drives? but still wonderful to be able to have the option to change in any case.

[nanofrog]

im just coming from the angle of costs, and reliability. sure with the consumer model you can change the timins, but i daresay they would not be as reliable, safe, quiet and effective as the RE drives? but still wonderful to be able to have the option to change in any case.
Yes, the consumer models are cheaper. No, they're not as reliable. And unless it's older drives, you can't run the TLER utility on consumer drives anymore.

It was a nice thing to have for backup locations, but alas, no longer possible with the disks currently manufactured (consumer Green models).

You can still change the timings on the enterprise units for compatibility issues though (could solve an issue rather than screwed while waiting for new card firmware, as most of the problems are solved that way, not from the drive makers).

[dknightd]

How is it only one backup? I understand both drives in the enclosure are identical but there are two drives, therefor two backups. If one drive fails, then I have the second backup to go off of. Just trying to see ur point

It is one backup because you made it at the same time, and it is in the same place. It is a very good backup, but it is one backup in my mind. If the enclosure craps out, then what? If you delete a file by mistake, then make a backup, what happens? I'd almost rather raid1 my working drive (so I had an immediate backup of everything I did) and rely on a single backup when I knew things were good. But that is me, and like I said, everybody has a different idea of how to backup. In case you care, what I do is nightly
backup to a local drives (turned on as needed), and occasionally backup to off-site drives. I also use time machine to backup some stuff automatically. Again it is not perfect, and it may not work for you.

If you raid 2x2tb disks (for the space) how does your backup deal with that? Are your backup disks 4tb (if so, where can I buy them), or do you not plan to fill your working disks.

Not trying to cause problems, just discussing things :cool:

[DoFoT9]

Yes, the consumer models are cheaper. No, they're not as reliable. And unless it's older drives, you can't run the TLER utility on consumer drives anymore.

It was a nice thing to have for backup locations, but alas, no longer possible with the disks currently manufactured (consumer Green models).
maybe it was causing more troubles then it was worth? R&D wise or something, the fact that they were doing it would have made them quite popular though! so i am confused why they dropped it.

You can still change the timings on the enterprise units for compatibility issues though (could solve an issue rather than screwed while waiting for new card firmware, as most of the problems are solved that way, not from the drive makers).
ahh yes well you would want to hope so! at least they still have some sense about them ;)

quick question too - for consumer drives, would you go samsung, WD or hitachi (talking 2TBs, lowest models possible). im out of space again ;)

[dknightd]

FakeRAID controller based solutions; I hate them with a passion, as software implementations cannot handle parity based arrays properly, and they don't make their customers aware of this. :( :mad:


Here is a popular example.

http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other%20World%20Computing/MEQX2T8.0S/

says hardware raid. Uses "desktop" drives (4 x 2.0TB* Hitachi Deskstar™ 7K2000). I suspect all hardware controllers are not the same - some might allow more variability in the drives they control. I know nothing about the controller they are using. Maybe it fakeraid, maybe they are selling crap, maybe they have a controller that really works with desktop drives. I don;t want to get into a fight with them, but you might . .. . . :confused:

[nanofrog]

maybe it was causing more troubles then it was worth? R&D wise or something, the fact that they were doing it would have made them quite popular though! so i am confused why they dropped it.
They didn't have RE versions of the Green drives, which have a solid place in data centers due to power consumption (bean counters griping about the electricity bill). So they allowed the TLER utility to be used for that purpose (since those disks would be attached to RAID cards). But as it was also able to be done to the other consumer models, it cut into their profit margins (i.e. customers buying the cheaper, lower margin drives instead of the more expensive RE versions <7200rpm>).

Now they've got an enterprise Green, and eliminated the ability to run the TLER on any of the currently manufactured consumer models.

ahh yes well you would want to hope so! at least they still have some sense about them ;)

quick question too - for consumer drives, would you go samsung, WD or hitachi (talking 2TBs, lowest models possible). im out of space again ;)
1st choice = WD
2nd choice = Samsung

Hitachi I don't trust at all, and won't use their consumer drives (high failure rates from what I've seen and heard, and their Customer Support was absolutely awful last time I dealt with them). So they've lost me as a customer for consumer models, unless there's a significant change, and I trust the sources for that information. Their enterprise units are fine, particularly the SAS units.

[DoFoT9]

They didn't have RE versions of the Green drives, which have a solid place in data centers due to power consumption (bean counters griping about the electricity bill). So they allowed the TLER utility to be used for that purpose (since those disks would be attached to RAID cards). But as it was also able to be done to the other consumer models, it cut into their profit margins (i.e. customers buying the cheaper, lower margin drives instead of the more expensive RE versions <7200rpm>).
aahhh i see! that makes prefect sense in the business mode side of things then and i see where they are coming from.

Now they've got an enterprise Green, and eliminated the ability to run the TLER on any of the currently manufactured consumer models.
so this enterprise version comes with the same (7,0) timings as the rest of the RE line AND has the ability to change it as well?

1st choice = WD
2nd choice = Samsung

Hitachi I don't trust at all, and won't use their consumer drives (high failure rates from what I've seen and heard, and their Customer Support was absolutely awful last time I dealt with them). So they've lost me as a customer for consumer models, unless there's a significant change, and I trust the sources for that information. Their enterprise units are fine, particularly the SAS units.
ive got 2x2TB hitacihs in raid1 at the moment, they seem fine. the Samsun and seagate 2TBs are $109, WD is $118 - seems worth the investment if you are suggesting them ;) especially since i am considering RAID0! :eek:

[nanofrog]

so this enterprise version comes with the same (7,0) timings as the rest of the RE line AND has the ability to change it as well?
Yes. All the RE versions have the 7,0 timing by default, and they can be adjusted with the TLER utility (though some that've tried didn't see how to adjust the actual values, just set it on/off; but it is possible). It's an old tool afterall, and has to be done via a command line (so it's not as easy as a GUI).

ive got 2x2TB hitacihs in raid1 at the moment, they seem fine. the Samsun and seagate 2TBs are $109, WD is $118 - seems worth the investment if you are suggesting them ;) especially since i am considering RAID0! :eek:
Keep in mind, my choices are based on reliability first, performance and cost after (they can change, depending on need).

I look at it this way; A super fast or cheapest capacity disk is useless if it's going to fail on me in less than 3 years of use (additional time is better of course, but I plan on a 3 year MTBR). So if they fail prior to that, they're not a bargain to me (I don't want to have to deal with RMA's, swapping out bad disks,... prior to planned instances).

[DoFoT9]

Yes. All the RE versions have the 7,0 timing by default, and they can be adjusted with the TLER utility (though some that've tried didn't see how to adjust the actual values, just set it on/off; but it is possible). It's an old tool afterall, and has to be done via a command line (so it's not as easy as a GUI).
does seem quite old, but useful i guess. turning it on/off seems useful enough - youd assume the RAID cards are well within that spec and wouldnt interfere with it at all

Keep in mind, my choices are based on reliability first, performance and cost after (they can change, depending on need).

I look at it this way; A super fast or cheapest capacity disk is useless if it's going to fail on me in less than 3 years of use (additional time is better of course, but I plan on a 3 year MTBR). So if they fail prior to that, they're not a bargain to me (I don't want to have to deal with RMA's, swapping out bad disks,... prior to planned instances).
100% agreed there - these drives will be going in a file server which will likely be on 24/7, it will be used for various things but the drives are likely to have low-medium range write cycles, the aim here is certainly to have the lowest power drives but reliability is of uptmost importance.

ive seen ~$50 drop in 2TB drives, and 3TBs are nearly out in all consumer shops - ill be waiting another month or 2 for the prices to drop sub $100 and then i will invest :) i just can understand why the hitachi are ~$30 more expensive then Samsun/Seagate/WD but are worse?

[lbeck]

It is one backup because you made it at the same time, and it is in the same place. It is a very good backup, but it is one backup in my mind. If the enclosure craps out, then what? If you delete a file by mistake, then make a backup, what happens? I'd almost rather raid1 my working drive (so I had an immediate backup of everything I did) and rely on a single backup when I knew things were good. But that is me, and like I said, everybody has a different idea of how to backup. In case you care, what I do is nightly
backup to a local drives (turned on as needed), and occasionally backup to off-site drives. I also use time machine to backup some stuff automatically. Again it is not perfect, and it may not work for you.

If you raid 2x2tb disks (for the space) how does your backup deal with that? Are your backup disks 4tb (if so, where can I buy them), or do you not plan to fill your working disks.

Not trying to cause problems, just discussing things :cool:

No problem at all, glad we're discussing it. This is what I wanted.

I see your point about one backup. If the enclosure failed then I assume I can remove the drive or drives and plug them in elsewhere and they should work as long as they did not fail. Maybe I'm wrong for assuming that.

I also see your point about deleting a file then backing up and deleting in on my backup. That may be an issue for some but not for me since I'm a OCD file organizer and check to make sure I didnt do something like that before my nightly backup. Although, Im thinking about how I may change my backup system.

I like my external backup to be identical to what is on my Computer, which is why I use RAID1. And I like the idea of my backup having an identical backup. Ive had this type system for about 5 years and have never had issues so I'll probably stick with it. But I like the idea of having a "true" second backup so I'm not sure what I'll do. Maybe just buy a second enclosure.

Rigth now I have an old OWC enclosure and need to get a new one that supports higher capacity. I'm looking at the one you posted from OWC, the 8TB model. But if I use RAID1 it will only give me 4TB, which will work for now but not for the future. Definitley need to think about whats best in the long run since I'm upgrading my internal capacity and need to do the same for my external backup.

[SkyNite]

I liked the idea of having my OS look like its one drive for all my business files but if its not as secure then maybe I'll just not use any RAID at all. MY external backup system is Mirrored RAID 1 so I have two backups of everything.

So do you recommend not using RAID 0 then? If I dont use RAID 0 then my backup process will take longer since CCC can only backup one drive at a time, right? I'd have to back up one drive, then go to the next and next. Or is there an easier way to do that?

CCC can schedule as many backups as you like; check out CCC's Scheduled Tasks window. And the backups can run concurrently IIRC. At any rate, scheduling the backup tasks for the middle of the night makes this a non-issue for me.

IMO having a different boot disk (a SSD) and data disk for my home directory is not a big deal at all.

[nanofrog]

I like my external backup to be identical to what is on my Computer, which is why I use RAID1. And I like the idea of my backup having an identical backup. Ive had this type system for about 5 years and have never had issues so I'll probably stick with it. But I like the idea of having a "true" second backup so I'm not sure what I'll do. Maybe just buy a second enclosure.
You can do this with software, including by making a clone. If you want a second copy on-site, then direct it to 2x different locations (i.e. separate external enclosures if needed).

Rigth now I have an old OWC enclosure and need to get a new one that supports higher capacity. I'm looking at the one you posted from OWC, the 8TB model. But if I use RAID1 it will only give me 4TB, which will work for now but not for the future. Definitley need to think about whats best in the long run since I'm upgrading my internal capacity and need to do the same for my external backup.
You'd probably be best served by going with an eSATA card (http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Newer%20Technology/MXPCIE6GRS/) + external PM enclosure (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816111140&cm_re=sans_digital-_-16-111-140-_-Product). It's the least expensive way to attach mass storage when the internal locations are all filled (PM enclosures can usually be found in 4, 5, 8, or 10 bay versions, so it may be possible to fit both backups in the same enclosure, depending on drive capacities used).

[lbeck]

Awesome, thanks for all the info!

Nano frog, I'm curious ... Do you use a SSD for boot? And if so do you keep your user folder on your boot drive?

[DoFoT9]

You'd probably be best served by going with an eSATA card (http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Newer%20Technology/MXPCIE6GRS/) + external PM enclosure (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816111140&cm_re=sans_digital-_-16-111-140-_-Product). It's the least expensive way to attach mass storage when the internal locations are all filled (PM enclosures can usually be found in 4, 5, 8, or 10 bay versions, so it may be possible to fit both backups in the same enclosure, depending on drive capacities used).

you. are. so. bad. at. timing! :p

here i am all ready to purchase an ANTEC TWELVE HUNDRED - which can hold ~12hdds for about $215, and along you come with a solution that may be ok for me. i dont know what to do now! is there a cheaper way to do this but still let it connect via eSATA?

1. purchase computer case
2. purchase hdds
3. purchase RAID card
4. ??
5. connect via eSATA to comptuer :)

or would it just be cheaper/easier going with the case above (or similar)?

[nanofrog]

Awesome, thanks for all the info!

Nano frog, I'm curious ... Do you use a SSD for boot? And if so do you keep your user folder on your boot drive?
No, I use mechanical drives attached to RAID cards (2x cards; both are used in RAID 5, but one is SATA, the other SAS). Most of my files are large (requires fast sequential throughput), so random access throughput isn't a primary need (nice to have, but something I can compromise on). SSD's aren't well suited for RAID 5 (any parity based array) due to the write cycles (parity data + primary data), and are too expensive for the capacity. I expect this will change, but it will be awhile before the capacity is low enough I can re-examine SSD's for my primary usage. I may get one for a boot disk later (Velociraptor works just fine), but I'll wait until it's time to replace it first.

BTW, you can't sleep with RAID cards under OS X, so it has to stay on, or be shut down. Windows 7 has allowed the cards to sleep so far, but that's not been the case in the past, and could change with an update (XP or Vista don't allow sleep to work with RAID cards either).

you. are. so. bad. at. timing! :p

here i am all ready to purchase an ANTEC TWELVE HUNDRED - which can hold ~12hdds for about $215, and along you come with a solution that may be ok for me. i dont know what to do now! is there a cheaper way to do this but still let it connect via eSATA?

1. purchase computer case
2. purchase hdds
3. purchase RAID card
4. ??
5. connect via eSATA to comptuer :)

or would it just be cheaper/easier going with the case above (or similar)?
Well, they're not that similar.

You're trying to build a SAS/SATA enclosure run off of a proper RAID card (you're still missing some odds and ends, such as a PSU and the necessary adapter board and internal cabling), vs. an eSATA card + PM enclosure.

The throughputs possible are quite different, as the RAID card (assuming you intend to go with one port per disk) can product much faster throughputs than the PM enclosure (one port shared by all disks; what the PM chip does for you).

So will you be happy with say 250MB/s max for the eSATA + PM enclosure (based on 3.0Gb/s mechanical disks; you'd hit the wall with as few as 3x disks, assuming they're capable of 100MB/s each, and configured in a stripe set), or do you need more than that?

If you need more, or need parity, then you'll have to go with a RAID card.

But how do you plan on attaching this to an iMac? Or is it for a different system (hacked or otherwise)?

[DoFoT9]

Well, they're not that similar.

You're trying to build a SAS/SATA enclosure run off of a proper RAID card (you're still missing some odds and ends, such as a PSU and the necessary adapter board and internal cabling), vs. an eSATA card + PM enclosure.

The throughputs possible are quite different, as the RAID card (assuming you intend to go with one port per disk) can product much faster throughputs than the PM enclosure (one port shared by all disks; what the PM chip does for you).

So will you be happy with say 250MB/s max for the eSATA + PM enclosure (based on 3.0Gb/s mechanical disks; you'd hit the wall with as few as 3x disks, assuming they're capable of 100MB/s each, and configured in a stripe set), or do you need more than that?

If you need more, or need parity, then you'll have to go with a RAID card.

But how do you plan on attaching this to an iMac? Or is it for a different system (hacked or otherwise)?

hmm so building it separately probably isnt the best idea then, due to all those added extra costs. i had a look for the SANS Digital towerRAID and i cant seem to find any in Australia - so shipping it over isnt really realistic at this point in time.

oh - sorry, well the plan was to reuse my "Hackintosh" (E4600 CPU, old school i know) parts and take them from their 2bay beige case and put them into a ANTEC TWELVE HUNDRED, add in a few internal SATA port multiplyers and create some software based RAIDS for my storage. the possibility of having a potentional 12 bays for $200 is almost too much to miss up as i already have the PSU, RAM, mobo and CPU from the old Hack. ubuntu would be the host os (10.04 server LTS).

now if the possibility came along to keep the Hack (also has dual boot 10.04) in the beige case, attach an eSATA card, and purchase one of these TowerRAIDs - then i may consider that, as it will be utilising a hardware RAID - much better then any software RAID that i would have created myself. speed is not important, as ethernet will be the limiting factor (this will be acting as a file server).

[nanofrog]

hmm so building it separately probably isnt the best idea then, due to all those added extra costs. i had a look for the SANS Digital towerRAID and i cant seem to find any in Australia - so shipping it over isnt really realistic at this point in time.
Australian Distributor = Monstamac.com.au (http://monstamac.com.au/) ;)

oh - sorry, well the plan was to reuse my "Hackintosh" (E4600 CPU, old school i know) parts and take them from their 2bay beige case and put them into a ANTEC TWELVE HUNDRED, add in a few internal SATA port multiplyers and create some software based RAIDS for my storage. the possibility of having a potentional 12 bays for $200 is almost too much to miss up as i already have the PSU, RAM, mobo and CPU from the old Hack. ubuntu would be the host os (10.04 server LTS).

now if the possibility came along to keep the Hack (also has dual boot 10.04) in the beige case, attach an eSATA card, and purchase one of these TowerRAIDs - then i may consider that, as it will be utilising a hardware RAID - much better then any software RAID that i would have created myself. speed is not important, as ethernet will be the limiting factor (this will be acting as a file server).
Either would be possible.

To get started, how much throughput do you need, and what kind (random access or sequential)?

This will let me know if a PM enclosure is viable, and if you will need 6.0Gb/s (i.e. want to stripe some SSD's).

[DoFoT9]

Australian Distributor = Monstamac.com.au (http://monstamac.com.au/) ;)
ohh thanks very much! they kind of look new, and dont have SANS in stock, but i might shoot them an email!

To get started, how much throughput do you need, and what kind (random access or sequential)?
the main purpose will be a file server, for backing up movies, serving movies (ripped BD discs, so 5MB/s should be enough for that), holding iTunes library, and things like that. it is likely that all these may be going at once to various computers around the house. redundancy will be important, but throughput not so much - id be happy with 50MB/s at this point in time, the max would be ~70MB/s anyway as the filesever will be pluggeed directly into a GBoE switch.

does this help at all?

[nanofrog]

ohh thanks very much! they kind of look new, and dont have SANS in stock, but i might shoot them an email!
Worth a shot. Worst case, you could look into provantage.com, as they will ship internationally (last I checked). Not sure about shipping, but as the cost should be lower, the taxes should be as well (unless they tax the shipping too; not sure on this one).

I wish products were easier for you to get (cheaper too, as Australia seems to get ripped on everything electronic from what I can tell). :rolleyes: :(

the main purpose will be a file server, for backing up movies, serving movies (ripped BD discs, so 5MB/s should be enough for that), holding iTunes library, and things like that. it is likely that all these may be going at once to various computers around the house. redundancy will be important, but throughput not so much - id be happy with 50MB/s at this point in time, the max would be ~70MB/s anyway as the filesever will be pluggeed directly into a GBoE switch.

does this help at all?
Yep.

If you want to go external, a PM enclosure and eSATA card will do nicely.

If you choose to go with the Antec case (move the hack's main board,... to the Antec), you can get a non-RAID HBA (Host Bus Adapter; you can get up to 24 ports on a single card) or a coupe/few SATA cards if you can afford/have necessary slots.

As per how to do it (either the Antec or keep the hack in the current case), JBOD might be a good way to go, if you stick with OS X. One of the ZFS levels would also be possible if you go with Linux (JBOD too, but you have additional options that won't require a RAID card, as Z-RAID/Z-RAID2 don't have the write hole associated with levels 5/6, but have the same redundancy respectively <may save you a lot of time if you get a bad disk, so the recovery options might be something to consider>).

Cost is the hard part, as I've no idea what things really go for there to say which would be the cheaper way to go. :confused:

[DoFoT9]

*info*

thanks nano, would you like to keep this in PM so we dont keep this thread OT? cheers

[beaker7]

FWIW, I've been running a 4 drive RAID 0 using consumer level Seagate 7200.xx series for 4-5 years on a Mac Pro using Disk Utility. It is backed up hourly but I have never once had a disk drop out. Note that the disks have been replaced/moved to another machine within that 4-5 years, but in general I have not seen a disk fail due to it being consumer-grade in a software RAID 0.