Long answer :Nice!
What's the drive capacity of your storage? Sounds like you've got 14 sata drives--why not sas?
Thanks. Unfortunately, it appears SAS hard drives are generally higher RPM, and higher noise, which is exactly the opposite of what I want. Those lower RPM drives are quieter, generate less heat, and use less power. When sitting right next to the NAS, that's really important for me. So, I'll stick with SATA drives. I realize the green drives from enclosures aren't made for NAS, but they still seem to work just fine for my use case so far.So one thing in my experience is that sas drives generally are made to fare much better than their sata counterparts. In addition, it seems possible to find used large capacity sas drives cheaper per tb than even these 'shuck' deals. Something to consider.
Ah yes, good points. Yes, they definitely are higher rpm and more noise and power. But reliable drives are pretty much all built that way and always have been--it was only at the advent of the 'home computer' that diverged computer products into a consumer and professional lineup. And while there's been some crossovers, generally they are two different category of products with two different requirements. I think the move to put smr technology into consumer drives is a way to make this rift more evident. Although I'm not sure if sas drives are also getting smr technology.Thanks. Unfortunately, it appears SAS hard drives are generally higher RPM, and higher noise, which is exactly the opposite of what I want. Those lower RPM drives are quieter, generate less heat, and use less power. When sitting right next to the NAS, that's really important for me. So, I'll stick with SATA drives. I realize the green drives from enclosures aren't made for NAS, but they still seem to work just fine for my use case so far.
I used to run a BBS from home under OS/2 in my teens. Had all SCSI drives. Even a second case full of SCSI drives. I ran every single drive into the ground, meaning, until they died a clicky death. To be fair, IDE/PATA drives weren't particularly reliable in those days either.Ah yes, good points. Yes, they definitely are higher rpm and more noise and power. But reliable drives are pretty much all built that way and always have been--it was only at the advent of the 'home computer' that diverged computer products into a consumer and professional lineup. And while there's been some crossovers, generally they are two different category of products with two different requirements. I think the move to put smr technology into consumer drives is a way to make this rift more evident. Although I'm not sure if sas drives are also getting smr technology.
Yep, so you remember the good stuff. IDE was always a second fiddle in those days for sure. We built our two system in that era with full scsi. We went so far as to put a mylex dac960-sui scsi-scsi raid controller in one of them and ran 3x 9gb 2nd gen Cheetah drives in raid 5. With writeback on, it would transfer 10MB/sec in DOS. Still have that system but Supermicro can't repair the motherboard with a leaky varta battery so I'm going to have to get it done elsewhere.I used to run a BBS from home under OS/2 in my teens. Had all SCSI drives. Even a second case full of SCSI drives. I ran every single drive into the ground, meaning, until they died a clicky death. To be fair, IDE/PATA drives weren't particularly reliable in those days either.
The funny thing it's that those Toshiba N300 / X300 SATA drives stamped "high reliability" on the label that are 7200rpm are the ones giving the most problems this decade. Every other HDD drive I still own passed the h2testw test with flying, except one, and that was a Seagate 1.5TB SATA-2 model. I tossed it. Clearly no warranty left on that one. There are Google references to that model in 2002 on a Russian site. I didn't recall drives getting quite that big in those days.
I remember mostly having Adaptec cards. A 1542 that had a conflict with my Roland MPU-401 . I patched the BIOS, and my dad burned EEPROM at work for me a couple times, until I figured out the checksum. Then went VLB . I think PCI was just starting to appear on consumer mobos.Yep, so you remember the good stuff. IDE was always a second fiddle in those days for sure. We built our two system in that era with full scsi. We went so far as to put a mylex dac960-sui scsi-scsi raid controller in one of them and ran 3x 9gb 2nd gen Cheetah drives in raid 5. With writeback on, it would transfer 10MB/sec in DOS. Still have that system but Supermicro can't repair the motherboard with a leaky varta battery so I'm going to have to get it done elsewhere.
Yeah. I don't know if their true enterprise models are any better. But those definitely didn't hold up. And in terms of heat, they were too much. Not sure if that was because of the 7.2k rpm. I used to have 10k SCSI drives. Might even have had a 15k Quantum Ultra160 SCSI drive at some point. Still have an HP DDS-4 tape SCSI drive from the 1990s that I recently restored data from. OS/2 can run run on my FX-8120 with an Adaptec PCI SCSI controller (not PCIe). The data held up without issue 25 year later. Other than the OS/2 software not being Y2K compliant. All of the files were from the last century, though.Yeah, marketing at its best. The n300 series is only 1M mtbf and the x300 is only 600k mtbf--far below the 2/2.5M mtbf of true enterprise drives. And the warranty shows it too with only 3 years vs the usual enterprise 5yr.
Too late. I have so much spare electronic stuff in my house. I try to sell it. But it would be a full-time job to list every single of the 1000+ various types of cables in my drawers that fill one wall of my garage. I think I have one drawer full of SCSI cables still.Oh no, I wouldn't have tossed the 1.5TB. I would have donated it to a drive recovery company. It's like the digital version of organ doning--except with drives. They can use the head assemblies, circuit boards, and sometimes even the platters.
Ah yes, the 15xx series. We had a 3940uw so we could put the raid on a dedicated channel and all the other devices on their own channel since some of them were only scsi2. Good times. And expensive times--I think that card alone was $350 at that time.I remember mostly having Adaptec cards. A 1542 that had a conflict with my Roland MPU-401 . I patched the BIOS, and my dad burned EEPROM at work for me a couple times, until I figured out the checksum. Then went VLB . I think PCI was just starting to appear on consumer mobos.
Yeah. I don't know if their true enterprise models are any better. But those definitely didn't hold up. And in terms of heat, they were too much. Not sure if that was because of the 7.2k rpm. I used to have 10k SCSI drives. Might even have had a 15k Quantum Ultra160 SCSI drive at some point. Still have an HP DDS-4 tape SCSI drive from the 1990s that I recently restored data from. OS/2 can run run on my FX-8120 with an Adaptec PCI SCSI controller (not PCIe). The data held up without issue 25 year later. Other than the OS/2 software not being Y2K compliant. All of the files were from the last century, though.
Too late. I have so much spare electronic stuff in my house. I try to sell it. But it would be a full-time job to list every single of the 1000+ various types of cables in my drawers that fill one wall of my garage. I think I have one drawer full of SCSI cables still.
I think that really depends. Rather than saying SAS are well made, it's more like SAS only exists in enterprise market where it's supposed to be made better anyway. For example, Seagate has a few enterprise series that were made using the very similar drives. The same Exos SATA and Exos SAS would be made in similar quality and should have similar lifespan.So one thing in my experience is that sas drives generally are made to fare much better than their sata counterparts.
That's pretty much what I was trying to get across if it didn't come across. And the highest end sata drives do seem to be analogs of their sas brethern. It's always a great sign to see a single spec sheet for both the sata and sas version of the drive.I think that really depends. Rather than saying SAS are well made, it's more like SAS only exists in enterprise market where it's supposed to be made better anyway. For example, Seagate has a few enterprise series that were made using the very similar drives. The same Exos SATA and Exos SAS would be made in similar quality and should have similar lifespan.
Yeah, SCSI controllers were always expensive. And the drives.Ah yes, the 15xx series. We had a 3940uw so we could put the raid on a dedicated channel and all the other devices on their own channel since some of them were only scsi2. Good times. And expensive times--I think that card alone was $350 at that time.
Assume you were referring to Toshiba. I think those N300/X300 are the only ones I ever owned from them, so 4 data points is not really enough. Overall, I think drives reliability has improved a lot from what it used to be in the late 1980s and 1990s.I think their truly enterprise drives are better as you do see them showing up in enclosures and other racks from time to time. Still not as much as Fujitsu, Seagate, and HGST, but they are still a player. Perhaps their reliability still leaves something to be desired and that's why they're a smaller player.
Yeah, but not necessarily in the way you might think. OS/2 never got proper power management support. So CPU fan at runs full RPM all the time. No suspend/resume also. The FX-8120 I have is a 125W version, too. I used it for many years as a desktop when I first got it. Then moved it to one of my HTPCs. About 2 years ago, I upgraded that HTPC to a Ryzen 2700. I had enough old parts, was just missing a case . Got one for $25 at Fry's.Very cool you have os/2 running on the fx-8120--it must scream too.
Unfortunately driver support has always been an issue with older OS. There was no Aquantia support for example, of course. There was some hack to use FreeBSD 32 bit NIC drivers binaries in OS/2. But as of last year, Aquantia hadn't released FreeBSD drivers. I think they have now. It may be time to reimage one of my SSDs with OS/2 and boot it just to try to see how fast I can push it. It's probably full of security bugs, though ...And I bet basic office productivity can still be easily done with the platform. It always surprises me how little one needs to get real work done, and yet lots of hardware is trashed every day because it's 'old'.
Don't think I have any drive that small left. Smallest is a 96GB SSD. In terms of HDD, probably a pair of 1TB USB 2.0 drives. Maybe 500GB 2.5in HDD in a very old laptop...I completely understand. I'd just give it away--there's always someone that will take it. I still have a 20GB WD drive that must have one platter that's bad--so I use it as a 10GB drive and it's still going, lol. That's pretty awesome you have a drawer full of scsi cables. I still remember when it cost hundreds of dollars to have a good custom one made.
If the drive internals are actually the same, maybe they could have user-installable rear interface boards for SATA and SAS. Should work fine as long as they screw in and don't just loosely plug in like the old SCA 80pin to UW SCSI 68/50 pin adapters. It might cost more to manufacture as a separate component, though. Probably only home users care about this.That's pretty much what I was trying to get across if it didn't come across. And the highest end sata drives do seem to be analogs of their sas brethern. It's always a great sign to see a single spec sheet for both the sata and sas version of the drive.
Not sure what you are holding out for, I noticed yesterday they are $169.99 ($16.99/TB) from BB online and their eBay store (WD - easystore 10TB External USB 3.0 Hard Drive - Black | eBay). I meant to post this yesterday as there was a 5% Bucks until last night.Still waiting for the best sale at BB on the 10TB drives to match my 6x10 TB drives.