Seagate 8TB drives

Discussion in 'Storage & Backup' started by AEKaBeer, Dec 31, 2014.

  1. greenhawk

    greenhawk Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2003
    Messages:
    789
    currently, 6TB, HGST NAS, WD RED, WD Green. (and a HGST He i think).

    IIRC the HGST He is ment to have a PMR 8TB comming shortly and a 10TB SMR (shingles).

    I do not recall seeing much else comming in terms of large drives currently.
     
  2. wintermute000

    wintermute000 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    1,868
    yeah the 7200rpm NAS deskstars. Good performance, so far (touch wood) reliable. Had I known the coolspins do good in a 24x7 NAS I might have saved a few bucks/watts/db, but I chose to not chance my arm with a 16Tb RAIDZ2 build (I know its small biccies compared to a lot of you guys but for me that was a lot of dough).

    re: 90MB/sec, gigabit actually tops out closer to 110MB/s (theoretical is of course even higher). I can pull that figure on my home gigabit (go DLINK lol), let alone with proper enterprise kit.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2015
  3. Blinky

    Blinky Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Messages:
    2,577
    Location:
    Brisbane CBD
  4. Butcher9_9

    Butcher9_9 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,085
    Location:
    Perth , East Vic Park
    Well the drive has a 20GB cache so you have to wait until at least 20GB has been written (the bigger the better) to get accurate information

    Are you able to do the same 500GB transfer you did in the first test?

    Assuming its better than 30MB/s i'm happy, no going back now that 6 are on the way.
     
  5. power

    power Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    58,444
    Location:
    brisbane
    they what now?

    I'd expect maybe 128MB at the most as most 4TB's have 64MB.
     
  6. OP
    OP
    AEKaBeer

    AEKaBeer Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    4,151
    Location:
    North Melbourne
    Good to know that the performance isn't as bad as first thought, I'll be ordering 2 of these some time in the coming months, getting dangerously low on space on the "old" 4TB Hitachi's.
     
  7. power

    power Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    58,444
    Location:
    brisbane
    They'll probably be good enough for what most people will use them for.
     
  8. AusTerror

    AusTerror Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2001
    Messages:
    805
    Location:
    Canberra
    From what I have read, they have a 20GB or so 'traditional' HDD area, that writes can land on before the drive runs its optimization routines.

    And a 128MB ram cache like most other large seagates.
     
  9. power

    power Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    58,444
    Location:
    brisbane
    I don't even know what this means, might have to do some research.
     
  10. young_einstein

    young_einstein Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    2,562
    Location:
    Caroline Springs, VIC
    So I got my 3x8TB drives delivered from B&H this morning, and I didn't have to pay any GST/import on them - so that was a good thing - however their packaging was absolutely HORRENDOUS!

    All they used was a single piece of bubble wrap, just loosely wrapped around the drives (not even any tape), so all three of drives were just banging around inside the box.

    There's visible damage on all three of the anti-static bags where the drives have crashed into each other, so I'm just hoping that they're not actually damaged.

    I haven't actually powered them on yet to see if there's any issues ... but it's a pretty piss poor effort from B&H IMHO!
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2015
  11. Butcher9_9

    Butcher9_9 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,085
    Location:
    Perth , East Vic Park
    Well the first 20GB of drive is not SMR (shingle), just standard PMR (Perpendicular), think of it like a second layer of cache. They have 128MB of DDR cache and 20GB of HDD cache.

    Data gets written to the Ram, then HHD cache and then to the SMR part of the HDD. If you write a file larger than 20GB the performance will tank after the first 20GB as it has to then read off the HDD cache to the SMR and write new data to the 20GB cache which is why some of those benchmarks have speeds all over the place.
     
  12. greenhawk

    greenhawk Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2003
    Messages:
    789
    I thought they had to have something like that (section of "normal" drive). Just doing some thought exercises and running the file allocation table in a "SMR" section of the drive would just be a minefield on performance, even if just writing large files.

    I was also thinking that there has to be sections / rings of normal PMR or even gaps otherwise the SMR design would require everything from the start of the drive to the end to be shuffled (re-written) just for one file edit near the start of the drive.


    There is probably a way the test where these "separators" are but it would take some time. then have to "fight" the 20GB buffer section as well which might make it a little harder.

    All this means if the file allocation is located on a PMR section of the drive, that partitioning this seagate drive into multiple smaller drives will be a very very big no no.
     
  13. akashra

    akashra Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2003
    Messages:
    3,764
    Location:
    Melbourne, AU
    Any idea if the port replicator/SAS port on a HP Microserver will recognise these drives?

    I have a Lian-Li EX503 but it appears to claim it will only take 5TB drives, and if I remember correctly, the HP microserver won't take more than 3TB drives. Can anyone confirm?

    We currently have a QNAP TS-410 with 4x2TB that's full, two Microservers with 4x2TB one of which is full and one which is approaching full, another EX503 with 5x2TB that's full, and I have a spare, unpopulated EX503 that I'd like to start putting some drives in, partly for backup which is where these archive drives would come in.

    However it sounds like I'm going to need to find some other way of using 8TB drives - maybe an external card of some sort, which could end up being an expensive way around it?
     
  14. SirNemesis

    SirNemesis Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2002
    Messages:
    1,443
    Location:
    Geelong
    Not completely relevant, but I do know the Microservers take 4TB drives without issue. Haven't tried anything bigger in them though.
     
  15. wintermute000

    wintermute000 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    1,868
    Er guys he tested a 44GB file so that should take care of performance > 20GB ?
     
  16. Butcher9_9

    Butcher9_9 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,085
    Location:
    Perth , East Vic Park
    yes, but the screen shot was before it had done more than 20GB.

    I have a feeling that the 20GB is cache and as such not part of the total capacity available to the user so partitioning should not be an issue.
     
  17. young_einstein

    young_einstein Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    2,562
    Location:
    Caroline Springs, VIC
    For anyone who cares ... I've just slapped the 3x8TB drives into a new RAIDZ pool and done a few zfs send | recv from one of my other pools.

    I don't really put much stock into benchmarking stats, however it's certainly going to adequate for what I'll be needing it for.

    A scrub on the pool afterwards was running pretty consistently at ~430M/s, which is actually pretty typical of all my (SATA) pools. (I've never bothered to tweak any zfs parameters to get faster scrub speeds)

    Code:
     pool: crazy88
     state: ONLINE
      scan: scrub in progress since Tue Mar 24 21:16:02 2015
        218G scanned out of 821G at 433M/s, 0h23m to go
        0 repaired, 26.50% done
    config:
    
    	NAME        STATE     READ WRITE CKSUM
    	crazy88     ONLINE       0     0     0
    	  raidz1-0  ONLINE       0     0     0
    	    sdw     ONLINE       0     0     0
    	    sdx     ONLINE       0     0     0
    	    sdy     ONLINE       0     0     0
    
    errors: No known data errors
    
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2015
  18. AfterBurner1

    AfterBurner1 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,066
    Location:
    Adelaide
    @young_einstein that does look perty damn tasty. Did you get yours from B&H?

    Also, any issues with gpt? Zpool raid 5? Right?
     
  19. Butcher9_9

    Butcher9_9 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,085
    Location:
    Perth , East Vic Park
    Assuming that its Raid 5 , then you are getting a nice 75MB/s per drive which is no where near as bad as the 35MB/s some people are getting. My array will be twice the size and assuming it scales then 300MB/s+ write will be fine.
     
  20. young_einstein

    young_einstein Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    2,562
    Location:
    Caroline Springs, VIC
    I have some more disks on the way as well. I just needed to order them in batches for the sake of GST avoidance. ;)
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: