Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

TechyBen

Member
  • Content Count

    2,867
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards

This user doesn't have any awards

6 Followers

About TechyBen

  • Title
    Veteran

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This part is important in the latest video: Despite certain claim here, no one has ever said SMR is unusable as a HDD. But that certain NAS, and in this cas ZFS, tank performance to the requirement users need to know if the drive they are buying is SMR or not (drive managed or OS managed). I'll still dive out of this "discussion", but I do have to note this information, should anyone else look into this thread for info, and think SMR is fantastic, or think it's rubbish, and not just think sensibly and check their use case before deciding.
  2. I have 2005 system that died but was able to get a free liscesed upgrade from windows 7 pro 64 bit to windows 10 pro 64 bit upgrade free . Have boot on usb flash drive with boot on it. Building my own system with linus tech tips. Can I still use my windows 10 pro with new build free? Linus has been a real good send for this old guy.

  3. I'm out. Community has taken a nosedive and just is not worth it. Information here (that's not from LTT directly) is pointless, I can get it better from the Verge these days. :(

    1. Cyberspirit

      Cyberspirit

      Eh, I personally love this community. Although the side I follow is usually mostly memes and not really tech related but, still.

       

      Also, while I'm most certainly not one of them, there are a lot of smart and educated people here who know what they are talking about.

    2. imreloadin

      imreloadin

      Trust me, the community did that loooong before you even joined😂

  4. Where am I afraid of better understanding? Someone got an SMR drive, 2 of them failed building an array/raid. They replaced them with PMR drives (of the similar manufacture/design) and it built/did not fail. Thus they requested PMR drives for their arrays/raid/nas. Yes somehow, that's wrong? I'm wrong for agreeing with them that it would have been easier if they'd been told SMR/PMR so they could match up their raids. You know, like tires, bulbs, etc etc. "Materially identical" in marketing/engineering speak, 99% of the time is not the same.
  5. Citation? Linus when he tried shingled drives. Like I think it's impossible to have a discussion with you here. There is a cache. There is a requirement for it to remap the clustered read/write/read areas. It performs differently. Thus some may wish to buy different models with different performance. Some may even wish to get SMR disks with higher cache, but if it's not specced/noted, only buying and testing internally/personally will show the differences (between brands or in a brand). Why do I waste breath on this? "I'm not buying brand X because the oxide always d
  6. ? Is there some sort of magic that means SMR can never fail? Fact is, it's failure and function mode is different to PMR. Thus, someone asking for PMR is valid. Even if PMR is phased out (as with tube TVs, gramophones etc). It's a valid request. Faulty or perfect post singularity device... it is a valid request. Then like that customer they may buy a different product line, or eventually go with a competitor. It may not "hurt" WD, as there are enough other types of customers. But I'm not arguing for a side. There are results to the action, and they are different from putting a t
  7. ? OK. So he can ask them. That's great. You don't have a problem with him (or me, or anyone) asking them if a drive has PMR or SMR. Thanks. Can I also ask you. Are we allowed to ask them how large the PMR cache is inside the SMR drive? [edit] Hope you get to read this too, I am saying what they have done, just as you are saying what WD have done. Does not mean we agree with their reasoning does it? Besides, that person *fixed their issue by going to the PMR drives*, tech totally unrelated, the changed of a hidden spec listings, is what fixed their problem quickest/easies
  8. He asked for a PMR drive. He can be told "yes or no". Right? I have that one question. Can he ask WD "Is this drive PMR or SMR"?
  9. No. Just no. I had a manufacturers ECU specced and remapped. This is not besides the point just because you are wrong. This is incorrect, and you are deciding it is not? Who decides what I need to know? Who needs to show SMR is at fault? Can I not decide if I buy a product or not based on what it is? We do. People have tested the SMR. There is a performance gap. It has been tested. I did not claim it's "important", I claimed consumers asked to know. They wish to know. It *may* be important. The colour is *not* important to me, buy *may* be to others. S
  10. ? ? They asked for a PMR drive. That is what they were asking for. That is what they wished to purchase. I hope you never serve me at a restaurant. I would test every product before rolling out. Because I don't trust them or the products they release to perform as expected (note "expected", I still expect them to perform some way, just assume they will change their mind without noting it in a spec sheet). Their spec sheets are not reliable/avaliable. So I'd probably go to a competitor. What is your defence against them again? Unless you have access to som
  11. Nonononono. You don't get it, even if the HDD is made of jello, it's suppose to work exactly right for the NAS. It's a manufacturers fault in the firmwares nothing to do with jello being the wrong choice for a NAS drive. If Samsung brings out a new HDD that has no RAM cache, but uses a second mini super fast platter and magic super fast 18 read/write arms as a cache, it will perform exactly as a HDD with a RAM cache. However, if *only* Samsungs magic new HDD with super fast cache platters fail, it is *both* the new tech (magic super fast cache platters) *and* the fact it "f
  12. They do. Modders/car nuts do. And these things are listed. Sorry. (Aus too, cos you guys are so great at you car stuff )
  13. And. Did you read those posts in that forum? "I wish to keep to PMR drives" because they already had PMR drives. You are saying they don't have the right to make that decision to ask what type of drive it is and decide to buy/not/redesign their NAS/RAID/ZFS/failure redundancy on that? and not changing tech/design/spec = better knowledge of the hardware = (generally) less "new adoption" failures errors. This could be a normal firmware bug. But those *opting* to buy like for like to avoid new firmware bugs (mainly from new features) have the choice to chose. They don't if companies w
  14. And at that. I'm out. You admit there is a performance penalty, but not mentioned by the manufacturers, but above you claim there is no difference ("prove it" then say "there is a penalty")! As said, Samsung QVO is quad cell SSD, vs their older 3 cell, and other companies have platters/arms/vibration/power capacitor power off safety/etc/etc and are open about it. Here they were not. That's as much as needs to be said. PS, thread from June last year, as an example of them *not* performing the same. Granted, they were not failing, but they were throwing errors, as the users were not
  15. They removed platter numbers. This is not correct. SMR will impact me in certain workloads. *Could be*. Could also not be. I can test this, and thus the argument is invalid. Yep. But I wish to make informed choices. WD not allowing me to, will mean I go else where (I can look up reviews, but it takes longer than checking a spec sheet with other companies). Hence why I went for a Samsung SSD over Cruicial, burnt once with a lemon there, not going back for a while. No. To the fact of hiding that they are using it. As a cust
×