From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dark Penguin Subject: Re: md failing mechanism Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 03:09:56 +0300 Message-ID: <56A2C4D4.104@yandex.ru> References: <56A26E11.2090703@yandex.ru> <56A28309.9080806@turmel.org> <56A2A2C3.9000801@yandex.ru> <56A2AAB1.6070305@turmel.org> <56A2BCA1.6070005@youngman.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <56A2BCA1.6070005@youngman.org.uk> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Wols Lists , Phil Turmel , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids >> Since that was written, 'A' would now include almost-enterprise drives >> with RAID ratings like the Western Digital Red family. And the >> recommended timeout for 'C' has drifted upward to 180. > > Almost all posts mention WD Reds. It's NOT a recommendation, but seeing > as I've tended to buy Seagate (note my Barracudas) I looked for the > Seagate equivalent. They're called NAS drives, and they cost roughly the > same ... just pointing this out in case people like Seagate or dislike > WD ... :-) I would prefer a Seagate over a WD, but with my experience lately, I don't want any more Seagates, either... I switched to Hitachi, but they don't make low-speed drives anymore, and they are expensive... I wonder of those Seagate NAS drives are actually anywhere near "reliable"?.. -- darkpenguin