Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:56:12 -0400 From: "Mike." <the.lists@mgm51.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD NAS hardware suggestions Message-ID: <201407211056120131.00800484@smtp.24cl.home> In-Reply-To: <CAPYfQ9z%2B4hA1khcaPKs=gG4BpvgZtv=YLocK-XQ8m6s=539UVA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAPYfQ9z%2B4hA1khcaPKs=gG4BpvgZtv=YLocK-XQ8m6s=539UVA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 7/21/2014 at 9:35 AM cruxpot wrote: |Hi there, | |[snip] | |I am looking at Seagate's NAS line of drives since they seem to have |less DOA's in reviews than the WD red drives. Are these good for ZFS? | |[snip] ============= Another data point for you: http://techreport.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=94502 Depending upon where you looked, I wrote one of those early failure reviews for the WD Red drives, yet I continue to buy them in my ZFS array. Why?, you might ask. The easiest time to replace a failed drive is right at the beginning when it is new. Both amazon and newegg have a very efficient return/replace process for early failures. In my experience, once you get past the early failures, the WD Red drives are solid, the Seagates less so. So I run them for a week before I put them in the array. That seems to catch the early failures. I trade off early failures when it is far easier for me to deal with them vs. later life failures that often (and usually) occur when you least expect them and at inconvenient times. You might make a different trade-off.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201407211056120131.00800484>