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 1SS9xZ-0006a3-GY for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 09 May 2012 16:41:53 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 83994E07DF; Wed, 9 May 2012 16:41:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from svr-us4.tirtonadi.com (svr-us4.tirtonadi.com [69.65.43.212]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF512E07A1 for ; Wed, 9 May 2012 16:39:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vb0-f53.google.com ([209.85.212.53]) by svr-us4.tirtonadi.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SS9qz-003Sjo-AY for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 09 May 2012 23:35:05 +0700 Received: by vbbfc26 with SMTP id fc26so583187vbb.40 for ; Wed, 09 May 2012 09:39:45 -0700 (PDT) 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 Received: by 10.52.31.42 with SMTP id x10mr358101vdh.33.1336581585894; Wed, 09 May 2012 09:39:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.81.202 with HTTP; Wed, 9 May 2012 09:39:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.81.202 with HTTP; Wed, 9 May 2012 09:39:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4FAA2F0D.8080900@gmail.com> <4FAA595A.4040202@libertytrek.org> Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 23:39:45 +0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Are those "green" drives any good? From: Pandu Poluan To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec51ddd97a3fc2104bf9d2659 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - svr-us4.tirtonadi.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.gentoo.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - poluan.info X-Archives-Salt: 21f72ff7-80a9-47b4-bd4d-0756ead67b45 X-Archives-Hash: 83bc073ae5a29ee5346233d199485c30 --bcaec51ddd97a3fc2104bf9d2659 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On May 9, 2012 7:36 PM, "Mark Knecht" wrote: > > As for RAID, +100 to not use them. The WD Green drives do not support > time-limited error recovery (TLER) and spin down based on their view > of trying to save power. For me anyway they simply didn't work well in > any RAID configuration. I switched my home compute server to > Enterprise drives which have worked perfectly for 2+ years. > I can understand how 'green' drives can fcuk up hardware RAID arrays. But what about software RAID, e.g., dmraid? Can't we just configure it to be 'more forgiving'? Rgds, --bcaec51ddd97a3fc2104bf9d2659 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8


On May 9, 2012 7:36 PM, "Mark Knecht" <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As for RAID, +100 to not use them. The WD Green drives do not support
> time-limited error recovery (TLER) and spin down based on their view
> of trying to save power. For me anyway they simply didn't work well in
> any RAID configuration. I switched my home compute server to
> Enterprise drives which have worked perfectly for 2+ years.
>

I can understand how 'green' drives can fcuk up hardware RAID arrays.

But what about software RAID, e.g., dmraid? Can't we just configure it to be 'more forgiving'?

Rgds,

--bcaec51ddd97a3fc2104bf9d2659--