Suggestions for a replacement drive

[Vrakfall]

Hello!
I currently have to replace one drive from my raidz1 (3x3TB) which was made with WD green drives (shame!). One of them failed and I'm now looking forward to using more reliable NAS drives but I can't decide which one to buy.

You can find my thread over here and see my shameful build. Don't worry, I'm going to replace the whole machine with a more server-grade one soon (in a matter of months). You can also see I waited a long time before looking after a new drive but my life is quite busy right now so I'm taking care of this old NAS as soon as I have a bit of free time.

So far, I've seen 2 particular drives that seem interesting to me but couldn't make a choice as their price and people's opinions vary. Sorry for the french links, but that is where I'll have to buy them, I live in Belgium. I also put the amazon.com links for the same drives so you can read it. ;) Also, I've got an Amazon prime account so the price I'll are those I see with their reductions.

• Seagate IronWolf ST3000VN007 3 TB (I see it at 94.00€.)

Amazon.com link

• WD Red Desktop WD30EFRX 3TB (I see it at 116.90€.)

Amazon.com link

The American prices aren't different from one another but the European ones are very different. That's why I'd first go for the Seagate one.
Also, I chose a 3TB drive because the other ones are but I guess it could also be bigger, make a vdev for the non-used TB and slowly slide towards bigger drives in the future as the other WDs will fail (I guess). So if you know better "€/reliable TB" deals don't hesitate to tell me.

Also, if you know drives from other brands that could be even better, I'm interested.

So, what could be my best choice, regarding the reliability and the price? It could even not be in my short list.

Thank you all in advance!

 

[melloa]

I currently have to replace one drive from my raidz1

Considering you are using desktop harddrives, you are facing another drive failure when replacing the 1st failed one. When a drive is replaced, it starts to sync with the other ones (resilvering) and that process stress the drives data is copied from.

With that in mind, copy your data to a safe back-up and just re-build all with the new drives you are planning to buy.

Seagate or WD? Well ... I started to have many problems with Seagate years ago, so moved to WD and problems gone. Can't speak about the new Seagates, so let's wait for other folks to chime in, but back-up your data ...

 

[Vrakfall]

The problem about 'back-uping' is I don't have enough drives to back up 4~5TB, I'd have to buy even more. :/ I know it's the best solution but I also need to check if I've got the budget for that. I guess I can sort my data and see what I can/cannot afford to lose to shrink that amount.

 

[Kevin Horton]

How important is your data? If you really, really don't want to lose the data, maybe you should just shut the server off until you have a way to back it up. Otherwise, if you are prepared to risk losing the data, press on.

 

[danb35]

The problem about 'back-uping' is I don't have enough drives to back up 4~5TB,

You'll see it often said here that RAID is not a backup. Yes, it will protect your data against drive failure (within its limits), and that's probably the issue we think of most often. But there are lots of hazards that a RAID solution won't help with. To name a few: malware, catastrophic hardware failure, natural disaster, user error (and the latter is the most likely problem to arise). Since ZFS is awesome, snapshots can mitigate some of these, but if your data is important to you, it needs to be backed up on different hardware, or at least on different media. Ideally, the backup will be offsite (which is much easier than it used to be, but it's still inconvenient for terabytes of data).

I am less pessimistic about RAID5/Z1 than many others here. I ran a RAIDZ1 pool with 2-TB and 3-TB disks for some years, I replaced disks a few times, and I had no problems. But I don't run RAIDZ1 any more.

 

[Vrakfall]

How important is your data? If you really, really don't want to lose the data, maybe you should just shut the server off until you have a way to back it up. Otherwise, if you are prepared to risk losing the data, press on.

A big chunk of my data is very important so I'll consider shutting it off until I can save it nicely.

You'll see it often said here that RAID is not a backup. Yes, it will protect your data against drive failure (within its limits), and that's probably the issue we think of most often. But there are lots of hazards that a RAID solution won't help with. To name a few: malware, catastrophic hardware failure, natural disaster, user error (and the latter is the most likely problem to arise). Since ZFS is awesome, snapshots can mitigate some of these, but if your data is important to you, it needs to be backed up on different hardware, or at least on different media. Ideally, the backup will be offsite (which is much easier than it used to be, but it's still inconvenient for terabytes of data).

I am less pessimistic about RAID5/Z1 than many others here. I ran a RAIDZ1 pool with 2-TB and 3-TB disks for some years, I replaced disks a few times, and I had no problems. But I don't run RAIDZ1 any more.

I know RAID systems aren't backups. I've just been looking a certain amount of time after a cloud-based storage solution that would be affordable to me and I found these possibilities:
- Backblaze Personal: For 50$/year I could store an unlimited amount of data but I'd have to do it +- manually from a computer and doesn't seem to be doable from a NAS. (Is that sure?)
- Backblaze Business Backup: Sounds like a good NAS backup plan but it's 5$/TB/month. :s
- Crashplan Business: For 10$/month I could store an unlimited amount of data from a NAS.

Backblaze seem nice (on the first look) but they also seem more expensive when it comes to backup a full NAS.

Does someone use one of these and could give me their mind on these?

What would you do? Go for something like that? Buy 3 server-grade drives, replace the pool and use the old disks as backup ones? Other ideas?

Also, should I open another thread for cloud backup solution advices or is it fine here?

 

[danb35]

should I open another thread for cloud backup solution advices

It'd probably be best, since that question is both orthogonal to the question of which drive to buy, and also unrelated to FreeNAS hardware builds. But there are a couple of options you've missed:

• Plain old Crashplan for ~$50/year will back up anything you want to throw at it from your FreeNAS server--I have about 4 TB backed up there right now.
• Google Drive on a business account--$10/mo normally, but can be found for quite a bit less. Unlimited storage and bandwidth (and much better bandwidth than Crashplan, IME). Use rclone to implement this; I've written about it elsewhere on the forum.

Crashplan has been popular with FreeNAS users due to the plugin, but the plugin has been very problematic, and the prevailing opinion seems to be that you're better off setting up a Linux VM and running Crashplan there.

 

[Vrakfall]

It'd probably be best, since that question is both orthogonal to the question of which drive to buy, and also unrelated to FreeNAS hardware builds. But there are a couple of options you've missed:

• Plain old Crashplan for ~$50/year will back up anything you want to throw at it from your FreeNAS server--I have about 4 TB backed up there right now.
• Google Drive on a business account--$10/mo normally, but can be found for quite a bit less. Unlimited storage and bandwidth (and much better bandwidth than Crashplan, IME). Use rclone to implement this; I've written about it elsewhere on the forum.

Crashplan has been popular with FreeNAS users due to the plugin, but the plugin has been very problematic, and the prevailing opinion seems to be that you're better off setting up a Linux VM and running Crashplan there.

I'll do a new thread when I can, then.
These 2 solutions look even better, thank you.

Back to the drive question then. What brand do you prefer and why? Which one should I buy? Should I just go for Seagate considering it's much cheaper for me right now?

 

[danb35]

I favor WD Reds, but for me the price is a wash. In your situation, I'd probably buy the Seagate.

 

[Vrakfall]

I favor WD Reds, but for me the price is a wash. In your situation, I'd probably buy the Seagate.

Thanks. Yeah, the 22.90€ delta doesn't look worth the supposed little reliability that could be added (if I start doing as I planned, a.k.a. using a better better system and backup my data).

 

[danb35]

FWIW, I do have a few Seagate drives in my server--an old Barracuda 2 TB that stubbornly refuses to die, and two NAS 6 TB drives (two of my POS "white-label" drives were failing, and the Seagates were cheaper than Reds at that time). I haven't had any problems with them, other than that the 6 TB drives run about 5 C warmer than my other drives.

 

[Vrakfall]

FWIW, I do have a few Seagate drives in my server--an old Barracuda 2 TB that stubbornly refuses to die, and two NAS 6 TB drives (two of my POS "white-label" drives were failing, and the Seagates were cheaper than Reds at that time). I haven't had any problems with them, other than that the 6 TB drives run about 5 C warmer than my other drives.

Interesting to know.
"Stubbornly refuses to die", funny :P

 

[Stux]

FWIW, I do have a few Seagate drives in my server--an old Barracuda 2 TB that stubbornly refuses to die, and two NAS 6 TB drives (two of my POS "white-label" drives were failing, and the Seagates were cheaper than Reds at that time). I haven't had any problems with them, other than that the 6 TB drives run about 5 C warmer than my other drives.

7200rpm drives

 

[Vrakfall]

7200rpm drives

7200rpm drives being romantic, just like this xkcd. :P

 

[danb35]

7200rpm drives

True, though the WD Red Pro isn't as warm as the Seagate NAS drives I have.

 

[Ericloewe]

7200rpm drives being romantic, just like this xkcd. :p

Doesn't work very well at low latitudes, since the angular acceleration applied to the Earth's rotational axis is going to be something like sin(lat).

 

[danb35]

"Stubbornly refuses to die"

If I really wanted it to die, I could always shoot it with a rifle like I did with my last discarded drive, but that seems a little wasteful...

 

[Vrakfall]

Doesn't work very well at low latitudes, since the angular acceleration applied to the Earth's rotational axis is going to be something like sin(lat).

Yup but it still has a tiny very tiny effect. ^^ And I'm in Belgium so I think I'm already ok if we're talking about latitudes? :p

If I really wanted it to die, I could always shoot it with a rifle like I did with my last discarded drive, but that seems a little wasteful...

Eh, it could still be useful! You should watch this which is, I think, the following of this. Enjoy :)

 

[joeschmuck]

So, the Ironwolf drives, lets talk about those for a few seconds becasue I have a few questions:

The Ironwolf 1TB, 2TB, 3TB, and 4TB drives are 5900 RPM while the 6TB, 7TB, 8TB, and 10TB are 7200 RPM. The acoustics are minor in difference. The head loading is rated for 600,000 cycles. And they all have a 3 Year Warranty. These seem to be the key features in my mind. The rest of the drive specs are very close to each other except maybe the power draw, the Iron Wolf 7200 RPM drives appear to pull slightly more power than the WD Red of the same size, but then again the Iron Wolf drives are 7200 RPM, with the exception of the 10TB drive which actually pulls a lot less power which boggles the mind.

Q1: What it the head unloading timer value? I wouldn't want something with less 300 seconds.
Q2: Is there a program which can alter the head unloading timer?

And lastly, I just checked the price of an Iron Wolf ($189.99) vs. a WD Red 6TB ($190.95) drive and that difference means I would buy a WD Red. I looked at 3TB drives as well and there was about a $6 difference. I guess in other countries drive prices are not always that close.

 

[Stux]

So, the Ironwolf drives, lets talk about those for a few seconds becasue I have a few questions:

The Ironwolf 1TB, 2TB, 3TB, and 4TB drives are 5900 RPM while the 6TB, 7TB, 8TB, and 10TB are 7200 RPM. The acoustics are minor in difference. The head loading is rated for 600,000 cycles. And they all have a 3 Year Warranty. These seem to be the key features in my mind. The rest of the drive specs are very close to each other except maybe the power draw, the Iron Wolf 7200 RPM drives appear to pull slightly more power than the WD Red of the same size, but then again the Iron Wolf drives are 7200 RPM, with the exception of the 10TB drive which actually pulls a lot less power which boggles the mind.

Q1: What it the head unloading timer value? I wouldn't want something with less 300 seconds.
Q2: Is there a program which can alter the head unloading timer?

And lastly, I just checked the price of an Iron Wolf ($189.99) vs. a WD Red 6TB ($190.95) drive and that difference means I would buy a WD Red. I looked at 3TB drives as well and there was about a $6 difference. I guess in other countries drive prices are not always that close.

I have 16 of the 4TB Seagate NAS-HD/IronWolf drives. They run quiet and cool. I have 6 of the 8TB IronWolf drives and they run significantly hotter. On the order of 10C in my system.

Drive unloading timings? Never had to touch it... they don't spin down... same as Reds these days.

Pricing in Australia:

Seagate 8TB Ironwolf = 373AUD (7200rpm)
Seagate 8TB Ironwolf Pro = 466AUD
Seagate 4TB Ironwolf = 189AUD

WD Red 8TB = 423AUD
WD Red Pro 8TB = 649AUD (ie a 7200rpm drive)
WD Red 4TB = 206AUD

Those are the best prices from http://staticice.com.au

When I bought my last batch of 4TB drives, WD's were circa 250AUD vs 189AUD for the IronWolfs. Also, the NAS-HD drives I bought previously had a 5 year warranty. Nice.