Is it worth to buy the SAS adapter to use SAS drives for durability?

[tanjackson]

I read SAS has much longer lifespan than SATA. so is it worth it?

[thrasher_565]

no

from what i heard you buy a big drive and only half fill it. that makes it "last longer"

i guess it leave space for error sectors i guess

Edited March 29 by thrasher_565

[da na]

22 minutes ago, thrasher_565 said:

no

from what i heard you buy a big drive and only half fill it. that makes it "last longer"

i guess it leave space for error sectors i guess

..huh?

If a drive is getting bad sectors that means it's failing. 

 

 

If you want to get 10,000RPM or 15,000RPM drives, sure, get SAS. But a lot of the SAS drives are literally the same SATA drives just with a different controller until you get into the range of drives that are like $400+ each. Really not worth it.

[thrasher_565]

2 minutes ago, da na said:

..huh?

If a drive is getting bad sectors that means it's failing. 

 

 

If you want to get 10,000RPM or 15,000RPM drives, sure, get SAS. But a lot of the SAS drives are literally the same SATA drives just with a different controller until you get into the range of drives that are like $400+ each. Really not worth it.

i dont no i think thats what a youtube video said about it. as some point secotrs do die on it thats were you get the so caled health i guess or it could be time used and baking on the ware of the motor but i dont no. alot of people also said ssd dont last and ive had mine for like 10 years and i filled it up all the time witch form what i heard is bad for it and it at like 70%so good for like 25 years or something...

[da na]

4 minutes ago, thrasher_565 said:

i dont no i think thats what a youtube video said about it. as some point secotrs do die on it thats were you get the so caled health i guess or it could be time used and baking on the ware of the motor but i dont no. alot of people also said ssd dont last and ive had mine for like 10 years and i filled it up all the time witch form what i heard is bad for it and it at like 70%so good for like 25 years or something...

Filling up a drive does not decrease its health, just makes it a bit slower. And bad sectors don't happen unless there is a hardware failure within the drive. Now there is a margin of error of "safe" number of bad sectors, but technically speaking that's still a physical defect, and it CAN cause data corruption.

Sometimes bad sectors are not discovered until a particular area of a drive is written to; perhaps that is where the idea of bad sectors developing as a drive fills up comes from.

[thrasher_565]

4 minutes ago, da na said:

Filling up a drive does not decrease its health, just makes it a bit slower. And bad sectors don't happen unless there is a hardware failure within the drive. Now there is a margin of error of "safe" number of bad sectors, but technically speaking that's still a physical defect, and it CAN cause data corruption.

Sometimes bad sectors are not discovered until a particular area of a drive is written to; perhaps that is where the idea of bad sectors developing as a drive fills up comes from.

this is the video i watched

 

looks like there another video about it i did not watch

 

Edited March 29 by thrasher_565

[Blue4130]

44 minutes ago, tanjackson said:

I read SAS has much longer lifespan than SATA. so is it worth it?

 

42 minutes ago, thrasher_565 said:

no

from what i heard you buy a big drive and only half fill it. that makes it "last longer"

i guess it leave space for error sectors i guess

Neither of these are true.

 

SAS and SATA drives have the same life expectancy, if comparing the same models.

 

Filling a HDD is fine. Filling an SSD is not.

[Ryker Robb]

4 minutes ago, thrasher_565 said:

i dont no i think thats what a youtube video said about it. as some point secotrs do die on it thats were you get the so caled health i guess or it could be time used and baking on the ware of the motor but i dont no. alot of people also said ssd dont last and ive had mine for like 10 years and i filled it up all the time witch form what i heard is bad for it and it at like 70%so good for like 25 years or something...

With traditional hard drives, all sectors are treated the same whether they have any data on them or not. They don't have wear leveling, garbage collection, or a dynamic map table like ssds do. So it doesn't really matter how "full" a hard drive is.

[Godlygamer23]

47 minutes ago, da na said:

If a drive is getting bad sectors that means it's failing. 

There's more to a failing drive than bad sectors. You can have a couple of sectors fail, and the drive itself will still operate just fine. There's a difference between mechanical failure and failing sectors.

[thrasher_565]

14 minutes ago, Ryker Robb said:

With traditional hard drives, all sectors are treated the same whether they have any data on them or not. They don't have wear leveling, garbage collection, or a dynamic map table like ssds do. So it doesn't really matter how "full" a hard drive is.

well i no they keep a reserve of space for it. it just keep you up at night when it dose it thing... i had to turn it off the other day. i thinks its faster when full but mine i epmtyed it so it was like at lest and hour before i was like f this... and i had ear plugs in... so done with hdds...

[Godlygamer23]

1 minute ago, thrasher_565 said:

well i no they keep a reserve of space for it. it just keep you up at night when it dose it thing... i had to turn it off the other day. i thinks its faster when full but mine i epmtyed it so it was like at lest and hour before i was like f this... and i had ear plugs in... so done with hdds...

What suggests to you that a hard drive that's full is faster than when empty?

[thrasher_565]

Just now, Godlygamer23 said:

What suggests to you that a hard drive that's full is faster than when empty?

faster when its doing its things w/.e its doing it dose it at like 2 at night make alot of nose...

[Godlygamer23]

Just now, thrasher_565 said:

faster when its doing its things w/.e its doing it dose it at like 2 at night make alot of nose...

Right, but what evidence do you have?

[thrasher_565]

1 minute ago, Godlygamer23 said:

Right, but what evidence do you have?

well im guessing it dose it once a week and dont think it went an hour... but it was like 90% full so...

[SImoHayha]

I have SAS drives. Though it was by accident and I really couldn't return them and said screw it. You're gonna need a SAS controller, SAS to SATA adapter cables for the SAS controller and of course SAS Drives.

If you're gonna get SAS drives, they generally are "cheaper" for more storage. you can find 4TB SAS drives for 40$, depending on where you shop. So 80$ for 8TB of storage compared for SATA. But of course you need a controller + cables and all that. Especially used SAS drives are even significantly cheaper.

[Godlygamer23]

5 minutes ago, thrasher_565 said:

well im guessing it dose it once a week and dont think it went an hour... but it was like 90% full so...

What is it doing?

The hard drive is not faster while full - unless you've done actual testing with it, and have actual data, I don't believe it to be true.

[thrasher_565]

4 minutes ago, Godlygamer23 said:

What is it doing?

The hard drive is not faster while full - unless you've done actual testing with it, and have actual data, I don't believe it to be true.

Scheduled maintenance tasks im guesing. w/e that is doing i dont no. only dose it at night or when you stop using the computer for some time. there seting to change it some were but i think you want it to do its thing at lest once a moth?

[Godlygamer23]

Just now, thrasher_565 said:

Scheduled maintenance tasks im guesing. w/e that is doing i dont no. only dose it at night or when you stop using the computer for some time. there seting to change it some were but i think you want it to do its thing at lest once a moth?

What does this have to do with the drive being faster while full though?

[thrasher_565]

Just now, Godlygamer23 said:

What does this have to do with the drive being faster while full though?

its faster at doing its task as things take up space less space to do w/e its doing. i cant tell you what its doing cuse i dont no what its called... all i no its its doing somthing at night on a Schedul and its nosey af. and i rember it taking lest time when it was full.

[SImoHayha]

1 minute ago, thrasher_565 said:

its faster at doing its task as things take up space less space to do w/e its doing. i cant tell you what its doing cuse i dont no what its called... all i no its its doing somthing at night on a Schedul and its nosey af. and i rember it taking lest time when it was full.

are you talking about Fragmentation????  that's the only thing I can even think of honestly.

[Ryker Robb]

5 minutes ago, thrasher_565 said:

Scheduled maintenance tasks im guesing. w/e that is doing i dont no. only dose it at night or when you stop using the computer for some time. there seting to change it some were but i think you want it to do its thing at lest once a moth?

Are you talking about defragmenting? Yes, this does help improve performance, by keeping reads of files more sequential, instead of random, which is a lot slower on hard drives. 

[thrasher_565]

4 minutes ago, Ryker Robb said:

Are you talking about defragmenting? Yes, this does help improve performance, by keeping reads of files more sequential, instead of random, which is a lot slower on hard drives. 

 

7 minutes ago, SImoHayha said:

are you talking about Fragmentation????  that's the only thing I can even think of honestly.

i guess thats what its doing then.

[Alex Atkin UK]

1 hour ago, thrasher_565 said:

 

i guess thats what its doing then.

Its "faster" at defragmenting when full, because its not able to perform a proper defragmentation due to lack of space to move the data.

 

This is one reason why performance of HDDs is worse when they are full.

[thrasher_565]

1 minute ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

Its "faster" at defragmenting when full, because its not able to perform a proper defragmentation due to lack of space to move the data.

 

This one reason why performance of HDDs is worse when they are full.

thats what i thought.

[Godlygamer23]

58 minutes ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

Its "faster" at defragmenting when full, because its not able to perform a proper defragmentation due to lack of space to move the data.

 

This is one reason why performance of HDDs is worse when they are full.

The claim that was made - intentional or not - was that hard drives are faster when full versus when empty.