From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1SS3be-0005du-Kl for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 09 May 2012 09:54:50 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AF627E06C8; Wed, 9 May 2012 09:54:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ob0-f181.google.com (mail-ob0-f181.google.com [209.85.214.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F9DFE05FE for ; Wed, 9 May 2012 09:53:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by obbuo19 with SMTP id uo19so118177obb.40 for ; Wed, 09 May 2012 02:53:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=qgP4Rig42McqaC3zZqTAddwZaRbuOP0NJ+0tYR2lKtY=; b=AQV7acmLBs+5YzusI2SOGucryVJezL/mJer1m8yV1W5Go88NJEI4+/+xyxI6RwgJga fiJUiKay4YZijwc9g8kjGGyDEs6MYjOzzCgcwfIfPbJq/QFItkGRBxZuISVtpiZct6H1 mR8u+uZ0owWtaNwop32FeJqrH2UDRf5E8rSW+8qgZaCKrsB/I17jCClsGQM8tlGSWxlc ooluCuBvd4VCplnI3YS4WFe04PP4w0pwK08aiYwaPUQ25VhFBCPFNHRCVZ/L36p1VZow XJgTfMUpcQzDfoiWdAatiKetchvF+AZFoW4T22flGL/lQfca5wT3q0GSHaMO47jcW75y FQ+Q== Received: by 10.182.188.38 with SMTP id fx6mr26381755obc.77.1336557181674; Wed, 09 May 2012 02:53:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.5] (adsl-65-0-66-173.jan.bellsouth.net. [65.0.66.173]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n5sm571457oef.13.2012.05.09.02.52.59 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 09 May 2012 02:53:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FAA3E79.5010007@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 04:52:57 -0500 From: Dale User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120508 Firefox/12.0 SeaMonkey/2.9.1 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Are those "green" drives any good? References: <4FAA2F0D.8080900@gmail.com> <20120509112543.6021e1f8@khamul.example.com> In-Reply-To: <20120509112543.6021e1f8@khamul.example.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: dcc218a5-bfd0-4e15-94f3-03825e7d42d6 X-Archives-Hash: cc60cc7075d89c09a8a267056f78ce8a Alan McKinnon wrote: > On Wed, 09 May 2012 03:47:09 -0500 > Dale wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> As some know, I'm planning to buy me a LARGE hard drive to put all my >> videos on, eventually. The prices are coming down now. I keep seeing >> these "green" drives that are made by just about every company >> nowadays. When comparing them to a non "green" drive, do they hold up >> as good? Are they as dependable as a plain drive? I guess they are >> more efficient and I get that but do they break quicker, more often >> or no difference? >> >> I have noticed that they tend to spin slower and are cheaper. That >> much I have figured out. Other than that, I can't see any other >> difference. Data speeds seem to be about the same. >> >> Please, no brand wars. I may get a WD, Maxtor, Samsung or some other >> brand. I haven't picked that part yet. So far, I have had good luck >> with drives. I think I have one doorstop so far. I have at least one >> of each of the brands above too. Don't jinx me. I'm sure someone >> has a horror story about some brand. > > > Green drives are basically just low power drives. It's a branding > gimmick. Like you noticed already, they tend to spin slower (uses less > power). > > I stuck 4 of them in my media server for 12TB of cheap storage. And > they are silent. I can barely hear them running even when I'm sitting > next to the server and the kids are running the telly full tilt :-) > > I haven't heard any mention from anyone at all that they are less > reliable in any way. I'd expect them to be more reliable than > super-fast drives because they are lower power, but drive models have > so many things affecting reliability it's hard to tell. > > One thing we have noticed is that Samsung's recent model are not very > "green", they spin up slowly, use lots of power and make a racket when > spinning. But they do work. > I was thinking the same thing about the speed and them lasting longer because of the slower speed. I mean, it's less wear and less heat. I'd just hate to buy one and it be a piece of junk or something else I wasn't expecting to be wrong. I wish I could afford server grade. Weeeeee!! I'm going to give this a shot. It's not like the OS is on it and I will be putting a lot of wear on it or be making those heads sing. It's just going to store videos, music and other stuff. I plan to set it up with LVM and put /home on it. Then I'm going to get rid of this legacy /data directory I have been carrying around for the past 7 or 8 years. Just put it all in /home where it should have been to begin with. I also forgot to mention, this rig runs 24/7 for the most part. It's usually only off when the power has failed and my UPS is a bit low. I'll be glad when they get our new wires ran for power. They been working on it for at least a month. It's ONLY 12 miles or so. ;-) They are replacing poles, wires, hardware and everything. I been here for 40 years, I have never seen them replace all this. Bad thing is, the lights go out when they do a major switch over. I bet the lines won't be breaking so much when this is done, at least not until some nut wrecks and hits the stinking pole. :/ Thanks for the info. At least I know it won't be junk. lol Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! Miss the compile output? Hint: EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"