On Jun 4, 2008, at 11:59, Darryl wrote:
> good thing i asked about the seagates... i always thought they
> were highly regarded. I know that everyone has their own opinions,
> but this is still quite informative. I've always been partial to
> seagate and WD, for not other reason than, thats all i've had :)
Just to be clear, I don't think Seagate is doing any worse than any
other vendor, and (given a small sample size) my WD's have had a
higher infant mortality rate so far.
The only thing making me chose WD for ZFS is TLDR:
since Seagate just came out with a low-power drive. If somebody can
show me how to tune a Barracuda like a WD, I'd probably switch back.
If you can spend the money for an 'enterprise' Seagate this isn't an
issue for you.
Just the idea of what a hard drive is admits a bad idea (spinning
rust-coated glass at 5000+ RPM with micrometer tolerances); it's just
better than the other options right now.
Hard drives fail. All of them. We get to bet on when and why, and
employ things like ZFS to help deal with it. Even ZFS is helpless
against small-odds events, though - sooner or later somebody will
have 3 drives of their raidz2 fail over the same night.
Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440
BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668
bill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cell: 603.252.2606
http://www.bfccomputing.com/ Page: 603.442.1833
zfs-discuss mailing list