ZFS passdevgonecb

Valeri Galtsev galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu
Fri Jun 19 15:37:45 UTC 2015

On Fri, June 19, 2015 10:02 am, Michael B. Eichorn wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-06-19 at 18:41 +1000, Da Rock wrote:
>> Ok, top posting as a summary really - numerous threads of thought going
>> on now.
> There are a few levels of drives these days. There are the enterprise
> grade
> drives that can take a bit more heat and have a longer mean time to
> failure.
> These drive have tighter manufacturing tolerances and cost lots more. Then
> there
> are NAS/RAID consumer drives that are made to about the same tolerances as
> a
> desktop drive but have a few modifications for a 24/7 workload. Typical
> desktop
> drives are not actually designed for 24/7 operation.
> Then there is the firmware, some drives designed for 'green-ness' try to
> spin
> down and do other things to save power, with a typical Windows desktop
> this is
> probably good.  However zfs (and most raids) expect the drive to do
> nothing
> without being told since zfs knows more than any firmware could.
> Frankly for most small-business and home loads WD Red Drives + zfs is
> enough for
> servers. I don't even put spinning rust in desktops anymore SSD + a
> network
> drive is enough for non-workstation tasks.

I would endorse all you said about drives. I will just mention the
"consumer" grade drives I happily use in RAIDs that proven to be very
reliable: Hitachi (these days HGST) SATA 7200 rpm. (And as it was already
mentioned, stay away from "green" "spin-down" and low 5400 rpm 3.5 inch

Just my $0.02.



Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list