Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 15:30:12 +0000 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What is the "better / best " method to multi-boot different OSes natively WITHOUT VirtualBox(es) ? Message-ID: <20201026153012.0cf46ec8@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <20201025173321.8adee3e5.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <CALMiprbGBaSJQUAA=1HDZAjvsVNK7dqB_5mBb5DKzV16F3hxHg@mail.gmail.com> <20201024111010.5c867e8540a369b826d26703@sohara.org> <20201025065025.6a13dc89@archlinux> <20201025173321.8adee3e5.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 17:33:21 +0100 Polytropon wrote: > On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 06:50:25 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > I also want to add for consideration, if reboots between operating > > systems are often wanted and HDDs are used, it's way better when all > > drives, even the unused drives are spinning all the time. Parking > > and releasing heads very often, does shorten the life span the > > most. I think this is mostly a myth. Manufactures specify a figure for this of, IIRC, around 150k cycles. Drives that are switched-off a few time a day never reach anything like that. A few year ago Western Digital made some green drives, with extremely aggressive power saving, that parked within seconds. With some usage patters these could fail in months. I think it was around this time that people started talking about heads as if they were like sledge hammers. > I don't know if this is still true, but in ye olden times, > there was a distinction between "home PC disks" and "server > disks"... > > dislikes ... running all the time And they aren't designed to take the same levels of reads and writes. > Probably modern disks tend to be more like server disks, > even when being sold for and used in home PCs... :-) These days home drives at 2TB or bigger are usually shingled - often without any mention, even on the data sheets. Typically there's a more expensive version aimed for use in RAID that isn't shingled. Another difference is that home drives try very much harder to recover data, whereas a drive intended for RAID is programmed to fail quickly and leave it to the redundancy.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20201026153012.0cf46ec8>