Western Digital 6Tb (Red & Green)

[golemcito]

Hello

Has anybody tested this news drives in a system?. I´m thinking in buying six of them and, at this moment, it seems nobody has tested it... I suppose the use of "wdidle" is still mandatory. Am I right?

Best Regards

 

[Ericloewe]

Hello

Has anybody tested this news drives in a system?. I´m thinking in buying six of them and, at this moment, it seems nobody has tested it... I suppose the use of "wdidle" is still mandatory. Am I right?

Best Regards

They should be similar to the old ones. Wdidle may not work with newer Greens, but those reports are unconfirmed at the moment. Reds would not need wdidle.

In any case, I don't expect any nasty surprises.

 

[DJABE]

I wonder if it's 2 TB per platter, 3 platters total? That's HUGE man! :)

 

[Ericloewe]

I wonder if it's 2 TB per platter, 3 platters total? That's HUGE man! :)

Nah. Must be 1.2TB per platter.

 

[cyberjock]

Hello

Has anybody tested this news drives in a system?

I'm running 10 of them in a RAIDZ2. Works great.

 

[DJABE]

6 TB HDD's x 10? WOW.... I've read somewhere ZFS experts warns not to use SATA disks for 2+ TB drives and to use triple parity mirror...

 

[golemcito]

I'm running 10 of them in a RAIDZ2. Works great.

Perfect, what drives are you using? Maybe the green ones? Did you apply the "wdidle"tool?

 

[cyberjock]

I'm using WD Reds which do not need the wdidle tool. The Green 6TB drives didn't exist when I bought my Reds (I bought mine the day they went for sale on Newegg).

Yeah, the warnings about 2TB is entirely relative. There's simple statistical math that will tell you "if a given config" is a good idea or not. For my situation I found the odds of data loss for *my* setup to be low enough to feel comfortable with it. Ultimately any thumbrule that specifies disk sizes limits is garbage because the statistics are really what you need to look at.