From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Knecht Subject: Re: Use of WD20EARS with MDADM Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:29:29 -0700 Message-ID: References: <4BAB8D41.4010801@gmail.com> <4BCF4693.3020101@buttersideup.com> <201004221913.50692.eye.of.the.8eholder@gmail.com> <4BD0A716.4080909@cfl.rr.com> <4BD0E3B9.5090504@sauce.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4BD0E3B9.5090504@sauce.co.nz> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Richard Scobie Cc: Phillip Susi , Khelben Blackstaff , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Richard Scobie wrote: > Mark Knecht wrote: > >> Keep in mind that just because we possibly solve the load cycle count >> problem doesn't mean that the drive will work for RAID. WD has also >> stated that these drives don't have any TLER features. > > I completely agree and wonder if some have unrealistic expectations. > > The WD20EARS is listed as a desktop drive and is cheap - $/GB. > > The RE-GP, (if you need the green features, otherwise RE series), version > WD2002FYPS cost more and has the following extra features over the WD20EARS: > > RAFF - vibration handling > TLER - RAID optimised error handling > An MTBF spec and the comment > > "Each drive is put through extended burn-in testing with thermal cycling to > ensure reliable operation." > > Which presumably helps weed out infant mortality cases. It is also > interesting to note that while all the RE series drives have a spindle > support bearing at both ends, only the 2TB desktop drive does. > > In light of all the above, you get what you pay for and need to adjust > expectations accordingly. > > Regards, > > Richard If drives always worked there wouldn't be much reason for RAID1, would there? ;-) Cheers, Mark