Overclock.net banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,623 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hey guys,

Well, I'm planning out a home server build for my family. It will be primarily backups (most of the storage dedicated to backing up computers), and storage for assorted stuff. No media functionality. I'm now torn between 2 drives, the 1TB spinpoint F3, or the 1.5TB EcoGreen F2. It is my understanding that the EcoGreen is going to be slower, as it is a 5400RPM drive. However, the cost almost makes it worth it.

1TB SpinPoint F3- $97.27 shipped. $.09727/GB
1.5TB EcoGreen F2- $99.99 shipped. $.066/GB

The 1.5TB is clearly more cost effective, being only $2 more expensive. However, what kind of performance hit will I suffer? I will be running Linux software RAID6, over gigabit. It doesn't have to be insanely fast, just fast enough to store all my stuff, and run nightly incremental backups. Thanks in advance all!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,489 Posts
The EcoGreen drive will be plenty fast, run cooler, and use less energy. Even though you're running a gigabit network, you still wouldn't max out throughput of a 7200 RPM drive.

I'd go with that one...

Edit: I should mention that I have a pair of Western Digital RE2 Green drives in my WHS box and it the speed is just fine.
 

·
I'm NOT new to Overclock
Joined
·
11,138 Posts
Hmmmm

You're going to RAID6 these? How many drives are you going to have in your array. Personally I would still go with the F3's purely because I read that they are good in RAID5/6 arrays. I know that some drives have slight issues in RAID array's. Like the 1TB WD black.

Comps
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,662 Posts
Go with the one that has less cost per gigabyte, as long as it seems trustworthy. For your application, I don't see a need for high performance. I'd chose reliability, total storage, and cost as your main concerns. I really don't think you need high performance drives for backups. I personally like the wd caviar greens for storage and reliability, I've purchased over 10 and they are all working without a hiccup, although I'm not sure how they are in RAID 6, or if it can be done with those drives as they all have variable rpm between 5400-7200 rpms.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,139 Posts
The Spinpoint F2EG will be fast enough. It'll be slower than the F3's, but not by a whole lot.

I would look at the Spinpoint F3EG 2TB ($0.09/GB)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,623 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Quote:


Originally Posted by compuman145
View Post

Hmmmm

You're going to RAID6 these? How many drives are you going to have in your array. Personally I would still go with the F3's purely because I read that they are good in RAID5/6 arrays. I know that some drives have slight issues in RAID array's. Like the 1TB WD black.

Comps

Well, it will start out as 2 drives in RAID 1. From there I can grow to a RAID 5, and when another $100 rolls around, I can grow to a full RAID 6. I'm on a budget, that's why it's starting with a minimum amount of drives, and growing from there. It's about $400, and every 1TB is another $90 from there. That's the beauty of linux software RAID, easy RAID morphing. My final plan is to have something like 4-6 drives total. RAID 6 because this data will be a pain in the butt to replace.
 

·
I'm NOT new to Overclock
Joined
·
11,138 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by Raptor_Jesus
View Post

Well, it will start out as 2 drives in RAID 1. From there I can grow to a RAID 5, and when another $100 rolls around, I can grow to a full RAID 6. That's the beauty of linux software RAID, easy RAID morphing. My final plan is to have something like 4-6 drives total. RAID 6 because this data will be a pain in the butt to replace.

And RAID6 will give you your double parity for double drive failure.

If its a linux based raid then yeah, the f2's. Purely because if you have a drive fail it doesn't matter too much.

What software you using for your incrementals? And you doing your Full's over the weekend?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,314 Posts
Your mileage may vary, but I have seen huge performance decreases when running software raid 6... Depending on the load, the cpu will be quite busy calculating the parity bits. If I can find my old test logs I will share them. We basically hit a bottleneck with a pentiumD when running backups on a software raid6 setup.

Of course with the new procs, this may not mean much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,623 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Quote:


Originally Posted by compuman145
View Post

And RAID6 will give you your double parity for double drive failure.

If its a linux based raid then yeah, the f2's. Purely because if you have a drive fail it doesn't matter too much.

What software you using for your incrementals? And you doing your Full's over the weekend?

Rsync. It will pull data from machines every night. I will only be doing full backups of one machine in particular (Parent's machine), which contains all photos and important stuff. My machine will just be a straight incremental.

EDIT:

Quote:


Originally Posted by airbozo
View Post

Your mileage may vary, but I have seen huge performance decreases when running software raid 6... Depending on the load, the cpu will be quite busy calculating the parity bits. If I can find my old test logs I will share them. We basically hit a bottleneck with a pentiumD when running backups on a software raid6 setup.

Of course with the new procs, this may not mean much.

Yes, and that is why I'm going with a slightly more powerful proc. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-688-_-Product One core can be dedicated to parity calcs, and the other free for whatever else is needed. The server I run at my high school is running SW RAID5, and is slow because the school refused to give me a real HW RAID card. It is also running on an oldschool dell poweredge from years ago. Dual Pentium III if I believe. Reads are fine, writing images (5-10 GB a pop) is a nightmare.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,330 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by Smykster
View Post

...as they all have variable rpm between 5400-7200 rpms.

No they don't. There are NO variable spin speed hard drives currently available, from any manufacturer. The WD & Samsung green drives run at 5400rpm, the Seagates at 5900rpm (currently - this may change with newer drives/revisions).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,484 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by compuman145 View Post
Hmmmm

You're going to RAID6 these? How many drives are you going to have in your array. Personally I would still go with the F3's purely because I read that they are good in RAID5/6 arrays. I know that some drives have slight issues in RAID array's. Like the 1TB WD black.

Comps
Personally don't have any experience with WD Blacks in RAID arrays. I do have problems with WD Greens and Seagate LP drives in RAID arrays though.

Honestly though, if one were that concerned with drives in a RAID array, one should go with RAID-designed drives, like the WD RAID Edition drives or the Seagate NS drives.

*ALL* my SATA-based file servers run newer 500GB or 640GB WD Black drives in RAID-1 arrays without issues...
 

·
I'm NOT new to Overclock
Joined
·
11,138 Posts
The 640's and the 500's were fine, It was only the 1TB drives that had issues.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,489 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by the_beast
View Post

No they don't. There are NO variable spin speed hard drives currently available, from any manufacturer. The WD & Samsung green drives run at 5400rpm, the Seagates at 5900rpm (currently - this may change with newer drives/revisions).

I thought the Western Digital Green drives were 5400-7200 RPM variable. Was that never the case or did they stop making them that way?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,623 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Quote:


Originally Posted by e_dogg
View Post

I thought the Western Digital Green drives were 5400-7200 RPM variable. Was that never the case or did they stop making them that way?

Yeah from what I understood they were variable, idling at 5400. Am I wrong?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
65,162 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,330 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by e_dogg
View Post

I thought the Western Digital Green drives were 5400-7200 RPM variable. Was that never the case or did they stop making them that way?


Quote:


Originally Posted by Raptor_Jesus
View Post

Yeah from what I understood they were variable, idling at 5400. Am I wrong?

That was never the case - WD just used a little 'creative' marketing speak to disguise the fact that they had just released a 5400rpm drive. They initially described their Intelispin technology so as to imply a variable rpm - they later changed this to say that the drives all use a fixed rpm that could be anywhere between 5400 and 7200 rpm. Acoustic analysis has since revealed that all the current green drives actually all spin at 5400rpm though - if you Google about a bit (IIRC SPCR did some testing, as did a few other sites) you can see a little about how the tests work - they just involve measuring the frequency of the sound given off). Unfortunately many review sites and most retailers didn't test WD's claims at all, so still hold wrong info.

The more up-to-date (but still a little misleading) info from WD can be seen here.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,489 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,489 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by the_beast
View Post

That was never the case - WD just used a little 'creative' marketing speak to disguise the fact that they had just released a 5400rpm drive. They initially described their Intelispin technology so as to imply a variable rpm - they later changed this to say that the drives all use a fixed rpm that could be anywhere between 5400 and 7200 rpm. Acoustic analysis has since revealed that all the current green drives actually all spin at 5400rpm though - if you Google about a bit (IIRC SPCR did some testing, as did a few other sites) you can see a little about how the tests work - they just involve measuring the frequency of the sound given off). Unfortunately many review sites and most retailers didn't test WD's claims at all, so still hold wrong info.

The more up-to-date (but still a little misleading) info from WD can be seen here.

Interesting...I hadn't heard any of that.

Either way, 5400 RPM is just fine for a drive being used for low-demand network storage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,623 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Quote:


Originally Posted by e_dogg
View Post

Interesting...I hadn't heard any of that.

Either way, 5400 RPM is just fine for a drive being used for low-demand network storage.

I figured. I've seen HDTunes put the ecogreen at 85MB/s average. Gigabit seems to put through about ~70MB/s.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top