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

The three major HDD manufacturers are selling slower drives, without telling us

5 hours ago, RejZoR said:

I'm pretty sure part of the problem was SMR exactly. When command came in from RAID array to do something, all the other drives were "alright, lets rock on" and SMR drive was like "holup guys, I got to shuffle this shit around"  and then whole thing just shit itself because it's expected that same drives would behave the same at the same time...

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. 🤦‍♂️

 

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

The problem occurred because WD released a drive that for whatever reason has not been able to do what they said it would.   It doesn't matter what the technology is inside a product, so long s the product does what it claims on the box.  No one asks or cares what type of fuel injection algorithm a car has or what the main gear of a sewing machine is made from, what they want to know is will it run as expected.   The problem here is not whether the drive has SMR as a listed spec or not, but that the drive is not doing what it is advertised to do.

 

 

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 "fails as advertised".

 

You're stating "the average is different" as we are stating "the specific data point is different!" Both are correct, both averages and specific data points are correct. Both the SMR in this drive [slows to a point the OS/NAS/RAID in some systems] fails and the drive fails [some expectation*] of spec.

 

 

*Which might be fixable in software/OS/firmware as with the AMD CCX problems were, but if customers/OS/firmware writers are not told for the NAS servers, then how can they fix it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

They do. Modders/car nuts do. And these things are listed. Sorry.

 

 

(Aus too, cos you guys are so great at you car stuff :) )

Th base maps they are talking about are for their ECU and comes in their package, they have done the work to get or create base maps for their program. that is not the manufacturer's,  But I digress and that is beside the point, there is a but tone of information that is not on the spec sheet that you just don't need to know as a consumer.  And we have yet to determine if SMR is that yet in any of these cases.

 

5 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

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 "fails as advertised".

 

You're stating "the average is different" as we are stating "the specific data point is different!" Both are correct, both averages and specific data points are correct. Both the SMR in this drive [slows to a point the OS/NAS/RAID in some systems] fails and the drive fails [some expectation*] of spec.

 

 

*Which might be fixable in software/OS/firmware as with the AMD CCX problems were, but if customers/OS/firmware writers are not told for the NAS servers, then how can they fix it?

Not too sure exactly what you are trying to say here.  but this whole situation is pretty simple:

 

some hard drives failed in a raid and we don't know why.  It might be SMR it might not.

 

Some hard drives in the consumer market are SMR and not labeled.   We don;t know what the performance gap is if there even is one ion real world terms.

 

You claim it is important to know if the drive is SMR or not,  so show me the benchmarks that show SMR drives are distinctly different in a way that can only be represented by labeling them as SMR drives.  If you can;t show me how they differ then you have no grounds to make claims about an SMR label being relevant.

 

The whole problem here is you think there is a problem because SMR was not listed on drives,  when no one knows what the actual problem is let alone if SMR is even a problem then how do you know it is a problem?

QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Sometimes I miss contractions like n't on the end of words like wouldn't, couldn't and shouldn't.    Please don't be a dick,  make allowances when reading my posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Th base maps they are talking about are for their ECU and comes in their package, they have done the work to get or create base maps for their program. that is not the manufacturer's,  But I digress and that is beside the point, there is a but tone of information that is not on the spec sheet that you just don't need to know as a consumer.  And we have yet to determine if SMR is that yet in any of these cases.

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?

 

Quote

 

Not too sure exactly what you are trying to say here.  but this whole situation is pretty simple:

 

some hard drives failed in a raid and we don't know why.  It might be SMR it might not.

 

Some hard drives in the consumer market are SMR and not labeled.   We don;t know what the performance gap is if there even is one ion real world terms.

 

You claim it is important to know if the drive is SMR or not,  so show me the benchmarks that show SMR drives are distinctly different in a way that can only be represented by labeling them as SMR drives.  If you can;t show me how they differ then you have no grounds to make claims about an SMR label being relevant.

 

The whole problem here is you think there is a problem because SMR was not listed on drives,  when no one knows what the actual problem is let alone if SMR is even a problem then how do you know it is a problem?

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.

 

So to you, SMR is not important, then you decide it must not be to them. The colour of the HDD is not important to you, so you decide the colour is not to others.

 

You don't get to make that decision, and thus RGB SSDs exist. And people asking for PMR exists! (At least while PMR exists in their rigs and there is a choice, when all drives go to SMR we can revisit this discussion, as with the old Tube displays, some benefits some drawbacks... :P ).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think my 4TB Seagate drive is the one on the list. 

 

I have not noticed it being slower vs other drives I have had as they were all pretty old.

 

I also have it in a read heavy/write light application. All the writes are large and very infrequent. So therefore slowness is expected and planned for.

 

I suspect this is probably how it was expected, it without impact on experience with a gain to the user on par with the loss (apple phone slowdown anyone?).

 

There are some of course who are in a different boat, they purchased the drive for a different application compared to those who boot and run mostly from SSDs. Those people should rightly feel aggravated by this news, even if most of us are just angry for the subterfuge rather than any real world harm.

i5 8600 - RX580 - Fractal Nano S - 1080p 144Hz

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

 

Who decides what I need to know?

You can decide that, but you can't pretend there is a legitimate reason for needing that information other than you want it.

 

46 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

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.

Link or citation please. 

 

46 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

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.

If it's not important then why do you need to know so badly?

 

46 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

So to you, SMR is not important, then you decide it must not be to them. The colour of the HDD is not important to you, so you decide the colour is not to others.

SMR is only a problem if there is evidence to show it is.  You may as well try to claim the oxide coatings they use is a problem because they haven't told you what they use. Some oxides are better than others so they should have to list it right?   Because it must be important to someone.  No, they don't have to list it and unless you have a reason to demand they list it then trying to argue that it is important to someone isn't a good enough reason.

 

 

46 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

You don't get to make that decision, and thus RGB SSDs exist. And people asking for PMR exists! (At least while PMR exists in their rigs and there is a choice, when all drives go to SMR we can revisit this discussion, as with the old Tube displays, some benefits some drawbacks... :P ).

I am not making that decision.  I am pointing out that claiming SMR is a spec that is necessary to know without being able to provide evidence to show why (again, that is evidence that there is an issue that can only be overcome/mitigated by labeling the drive as being an SMR drive) does not make it an important or necessary spec to list. 

 

 

Replace SMR in any one of your arguments with any of these components and you will see how pointless the demand is without evidence:

 

-oxidde coating

-size of coil

-magnet core material

-IC manufacturer

-specific code in the bios

-static mitigation architecture

-PS ripple rejection topology in the signal amplifier.

 

 

There are lots of specs we don't know and will never know.  Demanding that they tell me what coating they use because some oxides are not as good and I don't want a sub performing HDD is silly when you can already just not buy a sub performing HDD.  Knowing the oxide layer is causing it to perform slower doesn't suddenly give you any more usable information than you had before.  You already know not to use a ST2000DM001 in a raid and expect top performance or longevity, knowing it has SMR doesn't change that knowledge, finding out it uses an aluminum oxide instead of some other oxide doesn't suddenly make it any less suitable.

 

Here's a bunch of benchmarks of various drives:

https://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/large_drives.html

If SMR genuinely is big enough to cause a serious issue then those drives will fall down the list naturally. 

 

QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Sometimes I miss contractions like n't on the end of words like wouldn't, couldn't and shouldn't.    Please don't be a dick,  make allowances when reading my posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, mr moose said:

If it's not important then why do you need to know so badly?

It IS important to some, and those want to know. 

 

18 minutes ago, mr moose said:

There are lots of specs we don't know and will never know. 

People don't initially care about knowing whether it's SMR, they want to know the performance. Since manufacturers don't want to give read/write perfromance numbers, then at least tell us if it's SMR since then we can know performance will be massively lower if it's inappropriate for the use case.

 

The other stuff you mention will probably have some small impacts on pertormance. SMR can have HUGE impact, bringing down a drive to having write performance lower than any CMR HDD that's existed in 15 years.

 

Do you expect this read/write difference out of a 2-drive RAID0?

 

Clipboard01.png.5e1e7bcfb7de8fb3b6169e21731cab0e.png

 

(Yes is not a valid answer.)

F@H
Desktop: i7-5960X 4.4GHz, Noctua NH-D14, ASUS Rampage V, 32GB, RTX3080, 2TB NVMe SSD, 2x16TB HDD RAID0, Corsair HX1200, Thermaltake Overseer RX1, Samsung 4K curved 49" TV, 23" secondary

Mobile SFF rig: i9-9900K, Noctua NH-L9i, Asrock Z390 Phantom ITX-AC, 32GB, GTX1070, 2x1TB NVMe SSD RAID0, 2x5TB 2.5" HDD RAID0, Athena 500W Flex (Noctua fan), Custom 4.7l 3D printed case

 

Dell XPS 2 in 1 2019, 32GB, 1TB, 4K

 

GPD Win 2

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

It IS important to some, and those want to know. 

He said it wasn't important to him, but he needs to know.  So the only questions is why? 

 

3 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

People don't initially care about knowing whether it's SMR, they want to know the performance. Since manufacturers don't want to give read/write perfromance numbers, then at least tell us if it's SMR since then we can know performance will be massively lower.

 

The other stuff you mention will probably have some small impacts on pertormance. SMR can have HUGE impact, bringing down a drive to having write performance lower than any CMR HDD that's existed in 15 years.

Got some testing to show this difference?  I hear a lot of people make claims saying: "huge", "massive" and"half the performance from", but I have yet to see one person show me a test with the results.  What is the difference?  under what conditions does this massive impact occur?  If you can't tell me and I can't find it using a basic search then on what grounds is everyone making these claims?

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

Do you expect this out of a 2-drive RAID0?

 

Clipboard01.png.5e1e7bcfb7de8fb3b6169e21731cab0e.png

 

(Yes is not a valid answer.)

I have no idea what type of array, the type of drives, the age of the system or the way it was setup. I know nothing about it and thus cannot answer.  By the way don't ask a question if you aren't going to accept the answer.   It's a pointless effort that serves no purpose.

QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Sometimes I miss contractions like n't on the end of words like wouldn't, couldn't and shouldn't.    Please don't be a dick,  make allowances when reading my posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

By the way don't ask a question if you aren't going to accept the answer. It's a pointless effort that serves no purpose.

That's what you've been doing since the start of this thread though? 

 

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I have no idea what type of array, the type of drives

It's an array that would have had close to the same read and write performance if the drives weren't SMR, but since they are there's a difference factor of 3. 

F@H
Desktop: i7-5960X 4.4GHz, Noctua NH-D14, ASUS Rampage V, 32GB, RTX3080, 2TB NVMe SSD, 2x16TB HDD RAID0, Corsair HX1200, Thermaltake Overseer RX1, Samsung 4K curved 49" TV, 23" secondary

Mobile SFF rig: i9-9900K, Noctua NH-L9i, Asrock Z390 Phantom ITX-AC, 32GB, GTX1070, 2x1TB NVMe SSD RAID0, 2x5TB 2.5" HDD RAID0, Athena 500W Flex (Noctua fan), Custom 4.7l 3D printed case

 

Dell XPS 2 in 1 2019, 32GB, 1TB, 4K

 

GPD Win 2

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

That's what you've been doing since the start of this thread though? 

Which question did I ask that I am not listening to the answer?  The only question I have really asked is give me some numbers. I see you even snipped that question out of the last two posts of mine you quoted.  Cite a test or benchmark,  point me in the direction of testing,. don't just say there's a massive difference, actually back that up with something.

Quote

It's an array that would have had close to the same read and write performance if the drives weren't SMR, but since they are there's a difference factor of 3. 

That means nothing. that is literally what a politician would answer when asked a specific.   All you did was post a picture of a single crystal disk mark score and then blame SMR. 

 

So it appears no one can point me to independent testing or benchmark or anything at all that would indicate but they all want to believe their opinions.

 

I don't care how gullible the rest of the world is, I won't accept anything as being a fact until there is evidence to support it. 

 

 

QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Sometimes I miss contractions like n't on the end of words like wouldn't, couldn't and shouldn't.    Please don't be a dick,  make allowances when reading my posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a fan of SMR drives if they die after 2 years :(

wdIIL4m.png

PLEASE QUOTE ME IF YOU ARE REPLYING TO ME

LinusWare Dev | NotCPUCores Dev

Desktop Build: Ryzen 7 1800X @ 4.0GHz, AsRock Fatal1ty X370 Professional Gaming, 32GB Corsair DDR4 @ 3000MHz, RX480 8GB OC, Benq XL2730 1440p 144Hz FS

Retro Build: Intel Pentium III @ 500 MHz, Dell Optiplex G1 Full AT Tower, 768MB SDRAM @ 133MHz, Integrated Graphics, Generic 1024x768 60Hz Monitor


 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, rcmaehl said:

Not a fan of SMR drives if they die after 2 years :(

wdIIL4m.png

So that's a basic consumer drive that's been in operation almost constantly for 2 years, Whats the IO work load its seen?

 

EDIT: in fact that means you have basically restarted once every 3.6 days (average) and it is constantly running the rest of the time.

QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Sometimes I miss contractions like n't on the end of words like wouldn't, couldn't and shouldn't.    Please don't be a dick,  make allowances when reading my posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So that's a basic consumer drive that's been in operation almost constantly for 2 years, Whats the IO work load its seen?

 

EDIT: in fact that means you have basically restarted once every 3.6 days (average) and it is constantly running the rest of the time.

Was used for cold storage, including Windows File History. In fact, I'm pretty sure Windows File History is what killed it.

PLEASE QUOTE ME IF YOU ARE REPLYING TO ME

LinusWare Dev | NotCPUCores Dev

Desktop Build: Ryzen 7 1800X @ 4.0GHz, AsRock Fatal1ty X370 Professional Gaming, 32GB Corsair DDR4 @ 3000MHz, RX480 8GB OC, Benq XL2730 1440p 144Hz FS

Retro Build: Intel Pentium III @ 500 MHz, Dell Optiplex G1 Full AT Tower, 768MB SDRAM @ 133MHz, Integrated Graphics, Generic 1024x768 60Hz Monitor


 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2020 at 6:58 PM, mr moose said:

 

 

Because I don't see there being a problem. 

 

 

Because *you* don't see a problem means there isn't a problem?  Or does it mean you can't see all that well?  hmmmm....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rcmaehl said:

Was used for cold storage, including Windows File History. In fact, I'm pretty sure Windows File History is what killed it.

yes, but it was running for almost 2 years straight,  that's not cold storage, that's Luke warm storage at best. 😁

 

 

QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Sometimes I miss contractions like n't on the end of words like wouldn't, couldn't and shouldn't.    Please don't be a dick,  make allowances when reading my posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, thedude4bides said:

Because *you* don't see a problem means there isn't a problem?  Or does it mean you can't see all that well?  hmmmm....

Maybe if you read all my other posts you'll work out what I mean.

QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Sometimes I miss contractions like n't on the end of words like wouldn't, couldn't and shouldn't.    Please don't be a dick,  make allowances when reading my posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, rcmaehl said:

In fact, I'm pretty sure Windows File History is what killed it.

Probably VSS, MS is really not clear how how this works, shuffling data around in the background constantly. Not sure how it compares to the old Backup and Restore but that was fairly ok, at least I know how that one works.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mr moose said:

You can decide that, but you can't pretend there is a legitimate reason for needing that information other than you want it.

 

Link or citation please. 

 

If it's not important then why do you need to know so badly?

 

SMR is only a problem if there is evidence to show it is.  You may as well try to claim the oxide coatings they use is a problem because they haven't told you what they use. Some oxides are better than others so they should have to list it right?   Because it must be important to someone.  No, they don't have to list it and unless you have a reason to demand they list it then trying to argue that it is important to someone isn't a good enough reason.

 

 

I am not making that decision.  I am pointing out that claiming SMR is a spec that is necessary to know without being able to provide evidence to show why (again, that is evidence that there is an issue that can only be overcome/mitigated by labeling the drive as being an SMR drive) does not make it an important or necessary spec to list. 

 

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?

 

Quote

Replace SMR in any one of your arguments with any of these components and you will see how pointless the demand is without evidence:

 

-oxidde coating

-size of coil

-magnet core material

-IC manufacturer

-specific code in the bios

-static mitigation architecture

-PS ripple rejection topology in the signal amplifier.

"I'm not buying brand X because the oxide always dies". Yeah. I know some brands and some devices. I know some processes and some products. I'm done, I'm not even reading the rest and I'm out. Not in protest. I've just got better things to do then argue over trivialities and insults.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does oxide coating, size of coil, magnet core, IC vendor, specific BIOS code or whatever affects things notably? No. Does SMR? Yes, yes it does, very. What a stupid argument...

AMD Ryzen 7 5800X | ASUS Strix X570-E | G.Skill 32GB 3733MHz CL16 | PALIT RTX 3080 10GB GamingPro | Samsung 850 Pro 2TB | Seagate Barracuda 8TB | Sound Blaster AE-9 MUSES 01/03 | Altec Lansing MX5021 Nichicon FineGold/MUSES 8920

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kilrah said:

It IS important to some, and those want to know. 

 

People don't initially care about knowing whether it's SMR, they want to know the performance. Since manufacturers don't want to give read/write perfromance numbers, then at least tell us if it's SMR since then we can know performance will be massively lower if it's inappropriate for the use case.

 

The other stuff you mention will probably have some small impacts on pertormance. SMR can have HUGE impact, bringing down a drive to having write performance lower than any CMR HDD that's existed in 15 years.

 

Do you expect this read/write difference out of a 2-drive RAID0?

 

Clipboard01.png.5e1e7bcfb7de8fb3b6169e21731cab0e.png

 

(Yes is not a valid answer.)

Well -YES- is an valid answer.  That reports you only have 1TB of space...so if that is a RAID 0, those are older drives or very cheap drives...as you would have a 500GB HDD.  So if you are intending to use that as evidence, then please mention the models and such so people can verify your claim.  SMR slowness wouldn't show up like that anyways.

 

For those wondering; at 5TB in size, it takes 90 minutes of constant file transfer before SMR kicks in, so they are perfectly okay for general consumer use (and the reason I don't think it really doesn't matter as much on the consumer level)

https://www.anandtech.com/show/14539/seagate-backup-plus-portable-5tb-backup-plus-slim-2tb-review-portable-smr/3

 

1 hour ago, rcmaehl said:

Not a fan of SMR drives if they die after 2 years :(

wdIIL4m.png

That is a 2 year old drive, that has been on for 2 years...the warning could very well be due to the drive age (2 years on, it is likely the case has been bumped or just general wear and tear for a consumer drive).  Consumer drives were not meant for that level of punishment.

 

Again, it is my opinion that for things such as NAS drives, SMR should be list as it negatively impacts the intended usecase of the drive.

It would be great if it was listed on consumer drives; but I would not hold a company responsible for not listing it (as use of that technology falls into the general purpose of the drive)....again though, this is not giving WD a pass though, as using it in the NAS drives without labeling is inexcusable.

 

In regards to the Seagate consumer drives, can someone actually point me to a proper article or anything that says they were not always SMR drives...it is hard to claim bait and switch when it might have always been using SMR.  The issue I have with this thread is that people blame SMR when it likely isn't the issue.  SMR at worse case causes delay in write (which is a terrible for NAS rebuilds, but shouldn't cause it to fail) [again SMR shouldn't be used in NAS, but as Moose said it shouldn't effect rebuilds].  This is likely a buggy implementation of the firmware with SMR or perhaps the person who initially reported the problem actually has a messed up drive.

3735928559 - Beware of the dead beef

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Well -YES- is an valid answer.  That reports you only have 1TB of space...so if that is a RAID 0, those are older drives or very cheap drives...as you would have a 500GB HDD.  So if you are intending to use that as evidence, then please mention the models and such so people can verify your claim.  SMR slowness wouldn't show up like that anyways.

You dropped a 0. They're ST5000LM000 and from my experience must have no PMR cache. But there's no way to actually know, which is the whole point.

F@H
Desktop: i7-5960X 4.4GHz, Noctua NH-D14, ASUS Rampage V, 32GB, RTX3080, 2TB NVMe SSD, 2x16TB HDD RAID0, Corsair HX1200, Thermaltake Overseer RX1, Samsung 4K curved 49" TV, 23" secondary

Mobile SFF rig: i9-9900K, Noctua NH-L9i, Asrock Z390 Phantom ITX-AC, 32GB, GTX1070, 2x1TB NVMe SSD RAID0, 2x5TB 2.5" HDD RAID0, Athena 500W Flex (Noctua fan), Custom 4.7l 3D printed case

 

Dell XPS 2 in 1 2019, 32GB, 1TB, 4K

 

GPD Win 2

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

You dropped a 0. They're ST5000LM000 and from my experience must have no PMR cache. But there's no way to actually know, which is the whole point.

Yea, fair enough, I goofed on the 1TB part; I think I missed seeing the 1 in between the numbers.  Either way though, I looked at the model of drive you have...I still don't think it would be SMR that is causing that issue.  A glance at other disk marks that were ran with the model.

https://www.nikktech.com/main/articles/peripherals/external-storage/portable-hard-drives/7284-seagate-backup-plus-5tb-usb-3-0-portable-hard-drive-review?showall=1

(The model was mentioned was in the 5TB seagate enclosure, and exhibits a higher sustained rate than what is observed in yours).  Actually it can also depend on how the RAID is being run...I know I had trouble with my combination of IronWolf's in software RAID0 before (had to switch sata ports).

 

My point though is that there is so much negativity around SMR, that it doesn't make sense adding in a perceived negative to a product in the specs when it doesn't effect the use-case it was designed for.  It is why I think for NAS grade drives it is something that does need to be advertised as but consumer level it doesn't.  The articles that I have posted seems to show that the effects of SMR on performance are greatly oversold; and just looking around on the internet there is a lot of miss-information about SMR as is (with some posts claiming read speeds are adversely affected)

3735928559 - Beware of the dead beef

Link to post
Share on other sites

  

59 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

and exhibits a higher sustained rate than what is observed in yours

I just ran a test again and on an actual large file copy I get about 130MB/s average, but highly inconsistent, oscillates between 100 and 170 and is still less than half the read speed. Average speed is consistent over a 200GB copy so no PMR cache. 

I also have the same drive in an enclosure and I do get about half the speed with it so I know it's not the RAID that's inefficient. And I have known PMR 2.5" drives and they write >100MB/s without issue, and with similar read and write performance (this one is known to be SMR, there are no >3TB 2.5" drives that aren't).

 

So since my observations match the others that can be found of about a 2x reduction in write performance, plus the fact that the theory checks out (for every X data the drive actually has to write 2X to the platter) it's going to be hard to convince me that pure SMR doesn't cause a very significant slowdown.

 

Now caching can improve it, but that will only work on some workload types, and again what's missing is the information. How will it work in my particular application? Since it potentially can have serious impact on some workloads it is important to make it clear when a drive is SMR.

 

 

F@H
Desktop: i7-5960X 4.4GHz, Noctua NH-D14, ASUS Rampage V, 32GB, RTX3080, 2TB NVMe SSD, 2x16TB HDD RAID0, Corsair HX1200, Thermaltake Overseer RX1, Samsung 4K curved 49" TV, 23" secondary

Mobile SFF rig: i9-9900K, Noctua NH-L9i, Asrock Z390 Phantom ITX-AC, 32GB, GTX1070, 2x1TB NVMe SSD RAID0, 2x5TB 2.5" HDD RAID0, Athena 500W Flex (Noctua fan), Custom 4.7l 3D printed case

 

Dell XPS 2 in 1 2019, 32GB, 1TB, 4K

 

GPD Win 2

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TechyBen said:

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).

Link to this evidence.  Seriously, you are making the claims you need to provide the evidence, i am not trawlng through hundreds of videos on shingled drives to find the data you need. 

 

 

7 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Why do I waste breath on this?

 

"I'm not buying brand X because the oxide always dies". Yeah. I know some brands and some devices. I know some processes and some products. I'm done, I'm not even reading the rest and I'm out. Not in protest. I've just got better things to do then argue over trivialities and insults.

Because unless you have just as much of a reason to demand knowing the oxide content as you do demand knowing if it is SMR. 

7 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Does oxide coating, size of coil, magnet core, IC vendor, specific BIOS code or whatever affects things notably? No. Does SMR? Yes, yes it does, very. What a stupid argument...

You don't know that and that is my point, you have no idea what the performance is like with different coatings or the difference to the consumer with SMR.  Unless you can show that a specific tech has a specific effect on the drive then you may as well be picking any part of that drive and demanding they list it.

5 hours ago, Kilrah said:

You dropped a 0. They're ST5000LM000 and from my experience must have no PMR cache. But there's no way to actually know, which is the whole point.

So you don't know if they are SMR, but you are assuming they are and you won't accept anyone telling you there is no way to know.   And you won't give me any kinks to data or tests that even remotely support your claims.

 

QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Sometimes I miss contractions like n't on the end of words like wouldn't, couldn't and shouldn't.    Please don't be a dick,  make allowances when reading my posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So you don't know if they are SMR

Read the post, I know they are SMR, what I don't know is if they have PMR cache but everything points to "No".

F@H
Desktop: i7-5960X 4.4GHz, Noctua NH-D14, ASUS Rampage V, 32GB, RTX3080, 2TB NVMe SSD, 2x16TB HDD RAID0, Corsair HX1200, Thermaltake Overseer RX1, Samsung 4K curved 49" TV, 23" secondary

Mobile SFF rig: i9-9900K, Noctua NH-L9i, Asrock Z390 Phantom ITX-AC, 32GB, GTX1070, 2x1TB NVMe SSD RAID0, 2x5TB 2.5" HDD RAID0, Athena 500W Flex (Noctua fan), Custom 4.7l 3D printed case

 

Dell XPS 2 in 1 2019, 32GB, 1TB, 4K

 

GPD Win 2

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kilrah said:

Read the post, I know they are SMR, what I don't know is if they have PMR cache but everything points to "No".

O.K, enough evidence exists to say it is, I'll accept that.  so now I want to know why you are using laptop and external storage designated drives in a raid array.

 

Remember the storage triangle;  Fast, cheap, high capacity - pick two.   You went for high capacity and cheap and now you are arguing had you known that they were SMR before hand it would have made a difference to your purchase.  What if it turns out that for the designated use SMR make little to no observable difference? I mean had you bought an ironwolf or disk designed for raid and performance and had this issue then I would be very sympathetic to your cause (really I would),  but as it stands it looks very much like you bought a domestic storage disk designed to work on it's own, put it into a raid and now are upset because it doesn't perform like a professional disk.

 

Here's a post form a year ago about that exact drive in a raid array and he claims it was SMR back then, so Did you know it was SMR when you bought it?

 

QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Sometimes I miss contractions like n't on the end of words like wouldn't, couldn't and shouldn't.    Please don't be a dick,  make allowances when reading my posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×