Michael wrote: > On Wednesday 13 November 2024 23:10:10 GMT Dale wrote: >> Howdy, >> >> One of my PVs is about 83% full. Time to add more space, soon anyway. >> I try not to go past 90%. Anyway, I was looking at hard drives and >> noticed something new. I think I saw one a while back but didn't look >> into it at the time. I'm looking at 18TB drives, right now. Some new >> Seagate drives have dual actuators. Basically, they have two sets of >> heads. In theory, if circumstances are right, it could read data twice >> as fast. Of course, most of the time that won't be the case but it can >> happen often enough to make it get data a little faster. Even a 25% or >> 30% increase gives Seagate something to brag about. Another sales tool. >> Some heavy data users wouldn't mind either. >> >> My question is this. Given they cost about $20 more, from what I've >> found anyway, is it worth it? Is there a downside to this new set of >> heads being added? I'm thinking a higher failure rate, more risk to >> data or something like that. I think this is a fairly new thing, last >> couple years or so maybe. We all know how some new things don't work out. >> >> Just looking for thoughts and opinions, facts if someone has some. >> Failure rate compared to single actuator drives if there is such data. >> My searched didn't help me find anything useful. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Dale >> >> :-) :-) > I don't know much about these drives beyond what the OEM claims. From what I > read, I can surmise the following hypotheses: > > These drives draw more power from your PSU and although they are filled with > helium to mitigate against higher power/heat, they will require better > cooling > at the margin than a conventional drive. > > Your system will use dev-libs/libaio to read the whole disk as a single SATA > drive (a SAS port will read it as two separate LUNs). The first 50% of LBAs > will be accessed by the first head and the last 50% by the other head. So > far, so good. > > Theoretically, I suspect this creates a higher probability of failure. In > the > hypothetical scenario of a large sequential write where both heads are > writing > data of a single file, then both heads must succeed in their write operation. > > The cumulative probability of success of head A + head B is calculated as > P(A⋂B). As an example, if say the probability of a successful write of each > head is 80%, the cumulative probability of both heads succeeding is only 64%: > > 0.8 * 0.8 = 0.64 > > As long as I didn't make any glaring errors, this simplistic thought > experiment assumes all else being equal with a conventional single head > drive, > but it never is. The reliability of a conventional non-helium filled drive > may be lower to start with. Seagate claim their Exos 2 reliability is > comparable to other enterprise-grade hard drives, but I don't have any real > world experience to share here. I expect by the time enough reliability > statistics are available, the OEMs would have moved on to different drive > technologies. > > When considering buying this drive you could look at the market segment needs > and use cases Seagate/WD could have tried to address by developing and > marketing this technology. These drives are for cloud storage > implementations, where higher IOPS, data density and speed of read/write is > desired, while everything is RAID'ed and backed up. The trade off is power > usage and heat. > > Personally, I tend to buy n-1 versions of storage solutions, for the > following > reasons: > > 1. Price per GB is cheaper. > 2. Any bad news and rumours about novel failing technologies or unsuitable > implementations (e.g. unmarked SMRs being used in NAS) tend to spread far and > wide over time. > 3. High volume sellers start offering discounts for older models. > > However, I don't have a need to store the amount of data you do. Most of my > drives stay empty. Here's a 4TB spinning disk with 3 OS and 9 partitions: > > ~ # gdisk -l /dev/sda | grep TiB > Disk /dev/sda: 7814037168 sectors, 3.6 TiB > Total free space is 6986885052 sectors (3.3 TiB) > > HTH
Sounds like my system may not can even handle one of these. I'm not sure my SATA ports support that stuff. It sounds like this is not something I really need anyway. After all, I'm already spanning my data over three drives. I'm sure some data is coming from each drive. No way to really know for sure but makes sense. Do you have a link or something to a place that explains what parts of the Seagate model number means? I know ST is for Seagate. The size is next. After that, everything I find is old and outdated. I looked on the Seagate website to but had no luck. I figure someone made one, somewhere. A link would be fine. Thanks. Dale :-) :-)
