* Samsung F1 RAID Class SATA/300 1TB drives @ 2010-10-28 23:17 Mark Knecht 2010-10-28 23:37 ` John Robinson 2010-11-01 19:50 ` Bill Davidsen 0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Mark Knecht @ 2010-10-28 23:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linux-RAID I saw in Fry's San Jose ad today they were selling these Serial-ATA/300 drives for $67. They didn't give a model number but scouting around a bit on the web I'm guessing they are a discontinued model. Any inputs on whether these are drives that work well with mdadm RAID? Do they support TLER and otherwise work well? This would just be a home server of some type, nothing industrial. Probably a 3 drive RAID-1 or something like that. Comments? Thanks, Mark ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Samsung F1 RAID Class SATA/300 1TB drives 2010-10-28 23:17 Samsung F1 RAID Class SATA/300 1TB drives Mark Knecht @ 2010-10-28 23:37 ` John Robinson 2010-10-28 23:50 ` Mark Knecht 2010-11-01 21:26 ` David Rees 2010-11-01 19:50 ` Bill Davidsen 1 sibling, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: John Robinson @ 2010-10-28 23:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Knecht; +Cc: Linux-RAID On 29/10/2010 00:17, Mark Knecht wrote: > I saw in Fry's San Jose ad today they were selling these > Serial-ATA/300 drives for $67. They didn't give a model number but > scouting around a bit on the web I'm guessing they are a discontinued > model. > > Any inputs on whether these are drives that work well with mdadm RAID? > Do they support TLER and otherwise work well? > > This would just be a home server of some type, nothing industrial. > Probably a 3 drive RAID-1 or something like that. > > Comments? Well, they're perhaps not great. I bought three and after only about a thousand hours one of them was giving SMART errors, then after about 7,500 hours a second one started doing it too. At that point I replaced both with other makes, copying over with ddrescue (or maybe it was dd_rescue), which worked without any failed sectors, then ran badblocks -w on the Samsungs and the SMART errors went away. The third one of mine is still fine, and the other two are now in a ReadyNAS giving good service. Somebody else on this list recently reported problems with them, though that may have been more controller-related than a real problem with the drives. But yes you can set TLER on them (with a custom-built smartmontools from SVN or the recently-released 5.40). Cheers, John. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Samsung F1 RAID Class SATA/300 1TB drives 2010-10-28 23:37 ` John Robinson @ 2010-10-28 23:50 ` Mark Knecht 2010-11-01 21:26 ` David Rees 1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Mark Knecht @ 2010-10-28 23:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: John Robinson; +Cc: Linux-RAID On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 4:37 PM, John Robinson <john.robinson@anonymous.org.uk> wrote: > On 29/10/2010 00:17, Mark Knecht wrote: >> >> I saw in Fry's San Jose ad today they were selling these >> Serial-ATA/300 drives for $67. They didn't give a model number but >> scouting around a bit on the web I'm guessing they are a discontinued >> model. >> >> Any inputs on whether these are drives that work well with mdadm RAID? >> Do they support TLER and otherwise work well? >> >> This would just be a home server of some type, nothing industrial. >> Probably a 3 drive RAID-1 or something like that. >> >> Comments? > > Well, they're perhaps not great. I bought three and after only about a > thousand hours one of them was giving SMART errors, then after about 7,500 > hours a second one started doing it too. At that point I replaced both with > other makes, copying over with ddrescue (or maybe it was dd_rescue), which > worked without any failed sectors, then ran badblocks -w on the Samsungs and > the SMART errors went away. The third one of mine is still fine, and the > other two are now in a ReadyNAS giving good service. > > Somebody else on this list recently reported problems with them, though that > may have been more controller-related than a real problem with the drives. > > But yes you can set TLER on them (with a custom-built smartmontools from SVN > or the recently-released 5.40). > > Cheers, > > John. > > Thanks John - I think I'll skip them. Cheers, Mark ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Samsung F1 RAID Class SATA/300 1TB drives 2010-10-28 23:37 ` John Robinson 2010-10-28 23:50 ` Mark Knecht @ 2010-11-01 21:26 ` David Rees 2010-11-01 21:57 ` Leslie Rhorer 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: David Rees @ 2010-11-01 21:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: John Robinson; +Cc: Mark Knecht, Linux-RAID On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 4:37 PM, John Robinson <john.robinson@anonymous.org.uk> wrote: > On 29/10/2010 00:17, Mark Knecht wrote: >> I saw in Fry's San Jose ad today they were selling these >> Serial-ATA/300 drives for $67. They didn't give a model number but >> scouting around a bit on the web I'm guessing they are a discontinued >> model. >> >> Any inputs on whether these are drives that work well with mdadm RAID? >> Do they support TLER and otherwise work well? >> >> This would just be a home server of some type, nothing industrial. >> Probably a 3 drive RAID-1 or something like that. > > Well, they're perhaps not great. I bought three and after only about a > thousand hours one of them was giving SMART errors, then after about 7,500 > hours a second one started doing it too. At that point I replaced both with > other makes, copying over with ddrescue (or maybe it was dd_rescue), which > worked without any failed sectors, then ran badblocks -w on the Samsungs and > the SMART errors went away. The third one of mine is still fine, and the > other two are now in a ReadyNAS giving good service. I think that using two different brand drives in general is a good idea. We recently had 2 500 GB WD5000AAKS drives die at the same time over a weekend. Both of them suffered from the same death and would no longer spin up - just making a clicking/whirring sound when you powered it on. Luckily we had backups for most of the data on there, but some non-critical (but time consuming to manually restore) data had to be reconstructed. I understand that drives from the same batch will often die around the same period of time - from now on we plan on trying to use dissimilar drives when possible. First time we've seen 2 drives in one array die that close together and that catastrophically, though. -Dave ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* RE: Samsung F1 RAID Class SATA/300 1TB drives 2010-11-01 21:26 ` David Rees @ 2010-11-01 21:57 ` Leslie Rhorer 2010-11-03 17:04 ` Bill Davidsen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Leslie Rhorer @ 2010-11-01 21:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 'John Robinson'; +Cc: 'Linux-RAID' > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-raid- > owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of David Rees > Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 4:26 PM > To: John Robinson > Cc: Mark Knecht; Linux-RAID > Subject: Re: Samsung F1 RAID Class SATA/300 1TB drives > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 4:37 PM, John Robinson > <john.robinson@anonymous.org.uk> wrote: > > On 29/10/2010 00:17, Mark Knecht wrote: > >> I saw in Fry's San Jose ad today they were selling these > >> Serial-ATA/300 drives for $67. They didn't give a model number but > >> scouting around a bit on the web I'm guessing they are a discontinued > >> model. > >> > >> Any inputs on whether these are drives that work well with mdadm RAID? > >> Do they support TLER and otherwise work well? > >> > >> This would just be a home server of some type, nothing industrial. > >> Probably a 3 drive RAID-1 or something like that. > > > > Well, they're perhaps not great. I bought three and after only about a > > thousand hours one of them was giving SMART errors, then after about > 7,500 > > hours a second one started doing it too. At that point I replaced both > with > > other makes, copying over with ddrescue (or maybe it was dd_rescue), > which > > worked without any failed sectors, then ran badblocks -w on the Samsungs > and > > the SMART errors went away. The third one of mine is still fine, and the > > other two are now in a ReadyNAS giving good service. > > I think that using two different brand drives in general is a good idea. > > We recently had 2 500 GB WD5000AAKS drives die at the same time over a > weekend. Both of them suffered from the same death and would no > longer spin up - just making a clicking/whirring sound when you > powered it on. > > Luckily we had backups for most of the data on there, but some > non-critical (but time consuming to manually restore) data had to be > reconstructed. > > I understand that drives from the same batch will often die around the > same period of time - from now on we plan on trying to use dissimilar > drives when possible. > > First time we've seen 2 drives in one array die that close together > and that catastrophically, though. I had 4 Seagate drives go bad all at once on a 10 drive array. Fortunately, the drives did not die entirely. Indeed, I'm still not sure what is wrong with them. They seem to read and write just fine, but if they are added back to the array and the array is asked to access data with a high seek rate (read or write), the drives get kicked from the array. Relatively low seek rates allow the drives to continue to be array members, and when the drives get kicked, they can always be added back. I was able to use ddrescue to read the data 100% without any failures. Had the array been unrecoverable, I had backups, of course, but I did not have to resort to them. I'm not entirely sure when the drives all went bad, but it was within a week or two of each other. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Samsung F1 RAID Class SATA/300 1TB drives 2010-11-01 21:57 ` Leslie Rhorer @ 2010-11-03 17:04 ` Bill Davidsen 2010-11-04 1:54 ` John Robinson 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Bill Davidsen @ 2010-11-03 17:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Leslie Rhorer; +Cc: 'John Robinson', 'Linux-RAID' Leslie Rhorer wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-raid- >> owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of David Rees >> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 4:26 PM >> To: John Robinson >> Cc: Mark Knecht; Linux-RAID >> Subject: Re: Samsung F1 RAID Class SATA/300 1TB drives >> >> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 4:37 PM, John Robinson >> <john.robinson@anonymous.org.uk> wrote: >> >>> On 29/10/2010 00:17, Mark Knecht wrote: >>> >>>> I saw in Fry's San Jose ad today they were selling these >>>> Serial-ATA/300 drives for $67. They didn't give a model number but >>>> scouting around a bit on the web I'm guessing they are a discontinued >>>> model. >>>> >>>> Any inputs on whether these are drives that work well with mdadm RAID? >>>> Do they support TLER and otherwise work well? >>>> >>>> This would just be a home server of some type, nothing industrial. >>>> Probably a 3 drive RAID-1 or something like that. >>>> >>> Well, they're perhaps not great. I bought three and after only about a >>> thousand hours one of them was giving SMART errors, then after about >>> >> 7,500 >> >>> hours a second one started doing it too. At that point I replaced both >>> >> with >> >>> other makes, copying over with ddrescue (or maybe it was dd_rescue), >>> >> which >> >>> worked without any failed sectors, then ran badblocks -w on the Samsungs >>> >> and >> >>> the SMART errors went away. The third one of mine is still fine, and the >>> other two are now in a ReadyNAS giving good service. >>> >> I think that using two different brand drives in general is a good idea. >> >> We recently had 2 500 GB WD5000AAKS drives die at the same time over a >> weekend. Both of them suffered from the same death and would no >> longer spin up - just making a clicking/whirring sound when you >> powered it on. >> >> Luckily we had backups for most of the data on there, but some >> non-critical (but time consuming to manually restore) data had to be >> reconstructed. >> >> I understand that drives from the same batch will often die around the >> same period of time - from now on we plan on trying to use dissimilar >> drives when possible. >> >> First time we've seen 2 drives in one array die that close together >> and that catastrophically, though. >> > I had 4 Seagate drives go bad all at once on a 10 drive array. > Fortunately, the drives did not die entirely. Indeed, I'm still not sure > what is wrong with them. They seem to read and write just fine, but if they > are added back to the array and the array is asked to access data with a > high seek rate (read or write), the drives get kicked from the array. > Relatively low seek rates allow the drives to continue to be array members, > and when the drives get kicked, they can always be added back. I was able > to use ddrescue to read the data 100% without any failures. Had the array > been unrecoverable, I had backups, of course, but I did not have to resort > to them. I'm not entirely sure when the drives all went bad, but it was > within a week or two of each other. > One possible cause for this is a marginal power supply which "can't keep up" when supporting lots of seeks and transfers on multiple drives. In every group of drives there will be some variance for low voltage (or noise, more likely) and the drive(s) which are sensitive appear to fail. I say this from experience, it does happen, and going to a better power supply will cure it. This might not be the problem, of course, but it's worth investigating before blaming the drives. The sad truth is that if you have this problem and replace the weakest drives, it's likely that some other drive will become the weak sister and fail, leading to people saying "oh, those {vendor} drives are crap, I had {number} fail on me, one after the other." Have you heard that? Me, too! Check before replacing or scrapping drives! -- Bill Davidsen<davidsen@tmr.com> "We can't solve today's problems by using the same thinking we used in creating them." - Einstein ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Samsung F1 RAID Class SATA/300 1TB drives 2010-11-03 17:04 ` Bill Davidsen @ 2010-11-04 1:54 ` John Robinson 2010-11-04 10:34 ` Tim Small 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: John Robinson @ 2010-11-04 1:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bill Davidsen; +Cc: 'Linux-RAID' On 03/11/2010 17:04, Bill Davidsen wrote: > Leslie Rhorer wrote: [...] >> I'm not entirely sure when the drives all went bad, but it was >> within a week or two of each other. > > One possible cause for this is a marginal power supply which "can't keep > up" when supporting lots of seeks and transfers on multiple drives. In > every group of drives there will be some variance for low voltage (or > noise, more likely) and the drive(s) which are sensitive appear to fail. > I say this from experience, it does happen, and going to a better power > supply will cure it. This might not be the problem, of course, but it's > worth investigating before blaming the drives. Yes, marginal PSUs can be, well, marginal, but it seems even half decent PSUs can exhibit this behaviour as well, to some extent. So having read the above I thought I'd look up some data sheets to see why this might happen. The spec for Seagate Constellation ES 1GB drives - http://www.seagate.com/staticfiles/support/disc/manuals/enterprise/Constellation%203_5%20in/100516232f.pdf - does say that while the average idle power is 5W[1], and the typical peak operating power is 7W, the maximum transition power (whatever that is) is 40W - yes, 40W - so I can well see a bundle of relatively low-power drives placing some heavy stresses on an average or even average-to-good PSU. My rule of thumb of late is to expect 7.2k drives to draw ~7W, 10k ~10W and 15k ~15W, then add a margin for safety and power-up, but having read the above noted I might double it and make the margin bigger... Cheers, John. [1] Rounded up to the nearest W. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Samsung F1 RAID Class SATA/300 1TB drives 2010-11-04 1:54 ` John Robinson @ 2010-11-04 10:34 ` Tim Small 2010-11-04 11:30 ` John Robinson 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Tim Small @ 2010-11-04 10:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: John Robinson; +Cc: Bill Davidsen, 'Linux-RAID' On 04/11/10 01:54, John Robinson wrote: > operating power is 7W, the maximum transition power (whatever that is) > is 40W - yes, 40W I'd guess this is either during spin-up, (or spin speed change if enabled), or possibly even the "inrush" current when power is first applied to the device (i.e. only for a few milliseconds when the machine is turned on), and so probably wouldn't cause much of a problem unless. To check for such transient power supply issues, you need a good fast (expensive) digital scope, I'd guess - so that you can catch very short-lived ("transient") spikes or sags in the supply voltages, but you can do some quite easy checks to see if any of the speced currents are being exceeded (or are near the specified limits) over longer periods using a "DC Current Clamp" - such as a "UT203" clamp which I bought on ebay for about US$30. A quick search showed that there are other models available at about double the price which have an "inrush" function which presumably measures the peak transient current e.g. "Mastech MS2108" - so this might be a good compromise before splashing out loads of cash on a digital scope. Using a clamp meter is pretty easy - you just get all the individual wires of a particular voltage for the power supply (e.g. all the yellow 12v wires), and place the jaws of the clamp around those wires only - such that they are all "pointing the same way" i.e. the power-supply side is all on one side of the meter, and the power-consumers are all on the other side of the meter. i.e. PSU--------------+------------->Drive PSU--------------+------------->Drive PSU--------------+------------->Drive PSU--------------+------------->Drive PSU--------------+------------->Drive PSU--------------+------------->Motherboard with the clamp passed around the wires where the '+' is. The DC current in the wires induces a circular magnetic field in the clamp jaws, and this in turn "bends" the average path of a small current across a flat piece of silicon inside the meter - because the path is no longer "straight across from A to B" in the silicon but instead takes a longer route: the stronger the magnetic field, the higher apparent resistance of the silicon (known as the "Hall effect"). ... then you read off the measured current on the meter, check the spec sheet for the power supply (or sometimes the ratings sticker) to see what the max draw at 12v is, then repeat for 5v (red), 3.3v (orange) etc.... Tim. -- South East Open Source Solutions Limited Registered in England and Wales with company number 06134732. Registered Office: 2 Powell Gardens, Redhill, Surrey, RH1 1TQ VAT number: 900 6633 53 http://seoss.co.uk/ +44-(0)1273-808309 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Samsung F1 RAID Class SATA/300 1TB drives 2010-11-04 10:34 ` Tim Small @ 2010-11-04 11:30 ` John Robinson 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: John Robinson @ 2010-11-04 11:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tim Small; +Cc: Bill Davidsen, 'Linux-RAID' On 04/11/2010 10:34, Tim Small wrote: > On 04/11/10 01:54, John Robinson wrote: >> operating power is 7W, the maximum transition power (whatever that is) >> is 40W - yes, 40W > > I'd guess this is either during spin-up, (or spin speed change if > enabled), or possibly even the "inrush" current when power is first > applied to the device (i.e. only for a few milliseconds when the machine > is turned on), and so probably wouldn't cause much of a problem unless. Yes, reading the spec more closely indicates that this transition power is the drive waking up from its lowest power-saving mode, so it's spinning up the discs, so that's not going to be happening much. In second place after spin-up events, from the same spec, we have peak power during random reads of 24W, and 26W for writes, still more than 3 times the average operating power. I take "random reads" to mean lots of seeks, so as Bill said, heavy seeking could be rather rough on a PSU. Cheers, John. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Samsung F1 RAID Class SATA/300 1TB drives 2010-10-28 23:17 Samsung F1 RAID Class SATA/300 1TB drives Mark Knecht 2010-10-28 23:37 ` John Robinson @ 2010-11-01 19:50 ` Bill Davidsen 1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Bill Davidsen @ 2010-11-01 19:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Knecht; +Cc: Linux-RAID Mark Knecht wrote: > I saw in Fry's San Jose ad today they were selling these > Serial-ATA/300 drives for $67. They didn't give a model number but > scouting around a bit on the web I'm guessing they are a discontinued > model. > > Any inputs on whether these are drives that work well with mdadm RAID? > Do they support TLER and otherwise work well? > > This would just be a home server of some type, nothing industrial. > Probably a 3 drive RAID-1 or something like that. > > Comments? > Newegg has prices like that regularly. On brand name drives, like Seagate, Hitachi, and WD, too, if you prefer. -- Bill Davidsen<davidsen@tmr.com> "We can't solve today's problems by using the same thinking we used in creating them." - Einstein ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-11-04 11:30 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2010-10-28 23:17 Samsung F1 RAID Class SATA/300 1TB drives Mark Knecht 2010-10-28 23:37 ` John Robinson 2010-10-28 23:50 ` Mark Knecht 2010-11-01 21:26 ` David Rees 2010-11-01 21:57 ` Leslie Rhorer 2010-11-03 17:04 ` Bill Davidsen 2010-11-04 1:54 ` John Robinson 2010-11-04 10:34 ` Tim Small 2010-11-04 11:30 ` John Robinson 2010-11-01 19:50 ` Bill Davidsen
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).