|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
204.94.81.82
In Reply to: RE: What I've discovered posted by E-Stat on May 09, 2017 at 14:06:14
Interesting. Unfortunately, those benchmarks are more oriented toward SSDs which would be great if I could afford them in a NAS. Samsung has a 4TB SSD for just $1,500.
I found another benchmark that is more oriented to NAS drives. The WD Blacks lead the parade. And the Reds are right there with the HGST. What I noticed on their new Red drives is that while it's still 5,400 RPM, it seems like they're added more cache, pushing up the benchmarks. Of course, if you need 8 of them, price becomes a factor along with reliability and warranty.
-Rod
Follow Ups:
About the PassMark data Is that the benchmarks are divided into performance classes. If you scroll down (I did a page search), you'll find large numbers of spinning rust models. The linked page is the second down from the top called "High-Midrange" models. Indeed there is another category above this one that is exclusively SSD and you'll find other pages of even slower models.
If you click the "Select a Page" option to the right, you can choose which category you want to view. I found it useful to directly compare my Seagate ST2000 with SSDs.
I looked at the other pages and still didn't find much on NAS type drives. SSDs will blow away any spinning drive and RAID arrays are inherently slower than a single drive because you have to get data from multiple drives though it can depend on the controller, size of files and a zillion other factors including the drives.
Everything that that I've bought or put together in the last couple years has an SSD for the boot drive and a second fast 4TB drive for data. Booting and loading programs is nearly instantaneous.
Another issue with some of these benchmarks is that if they come from users, the systems vary widely. The processor, memory and motherboard bus speed will have have significant effects on overall throughput. In the past, bus speed was the biggest bottleneck and still is a major factor.
-Rod
Agreed. One can read all about it but ultimately one takes a leap. I did and so far, so good.1. I bought QNAP NAS boxes (3 so far) and have learned their exosystem which works well. I have close friends with similar setups and they have either QNAP or Synology.
2. I have WD Red HDs on my two older NAS boxes and, so far, none have failed. As for their speeds as related to access, I regularly stream DSD256 and DXD multichannel files from them over my wired LAN and have no problems.
3. My newest NAS uses HGST drives and, although these spin faster, I do not notice any difference.
Edits: 05/10/17
There's not a huge performance difference between HDDs of the same type with deliberate design choices made for speed, noise, power/heat, capacity, number of platters, etc. but there is field data collected over time that charts reliability. I stole this slide from last year's "Storage Summit" meeting that our storage products development team puts together for us field folks. Shorter bar is better.
Edits: 05/10/17
Nice data, Abe. There's no doubt that early failures give one far more grief than a few milliseconds of speed.
-Rod
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: