2.5" drives for server instead of 3.5"?
in [Storage]
|
Prev: sick of tapes - good disk-based backup solution for small/medium businesses?
Next: sick of tapes - good disk-based backup solution for small/mediumbusinesses?
From: Rod Speed on 28 Apr 2010 00:41 me wrote: > Is it a good idea to use 2.5" drives in a server that's up 24x7? No evidence that they dont survive fine in that config. > One part of me says "less power, less heat, that's good for them and the server Thats easily overstated with servers with adequate cooling. > and they are quieter too" and another part of me thinks that > notebook drives fail more often. Then again, they get carted > around all over the place, so their life in a notebook is kind of > rough compared to sitting a metal box in a corner their entire life. Precisely. > Opinions? Reliability is my main goal. If 3.5's are more reliable, I will go that way. They do appear to be. > POinters to any "life span" test sites appreciated. No one bothers to do that, essentially because by the time the test is complete, the drives are obsolete anyway. You do see some operations like google do some analysis of life spans seen, but they dont generally use 2.5" drives, so thats not any practical use with this choice. The other obvious downsides with 2.5" drives is that they are much more expensive per GB, slower than 3.5" drives and arent available in the same largest sizes either.
From: Arno on 28 Apr 2010 09:00 me <noemail(a)nothere.com> wrote: > Is it a good idea to use 2.5" drives in a server that's up 24x7? Depends. > One part of me says "less power, less heat, that's good for them and > the server and they are quieter too" and another part of me thinks > that notebook drives fail more often. Then again, they get carted > around all over the place, so their life in a notebook is kind of > rough compared to sitting a metal box in a corner their entire life. > Opinions? Reliability is my main goal. If 3.5's are more reliable, I > will go that way. POinters to any "life span" test sites appreciated. I don't think that under the same conditions 3.5" is more reliable. 3.5" is faster though at the same rotational speed. 3.5" is also cheaper. That said, I have had a fileserver/firewall (old PC with Linux) with 2.5" notebook drives, that has a 3-way RAID1 setup for important backups for something like 7 years now. The heat generated is much less. Noise is lower, however mechanical decoupling can still be needed. The only problem I have had so far was a drive with (rare) SATA disconnects, nothing I can identidy as a 2.5" problem. I think that notebook drives are tested for endurance under different conditions that 3.5" drives. Far more heat for one thing. Mechanical shock for another. That would explain the shorter warranty times adequately. Arno -- Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: arno(a)wagner.name GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F ---- Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans
From: Franc Zabkar on 29 Apr 2010 21:17 On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 22:26:38 -0400, me <noemail(a)nothere.com> put finger to keyboard and composed: >Is it a good idea to use 2.5" drives in a server that's up 24x7? > >One part of me says "less power, less heat, that's good for them and >the server and they are quieter too" and another part of me thinks >that notebook drives fail more often. Then again, they get carted >around all over the place, so their life in a notebook is kind of >rough compared to sitting a metal box in a corner their entire life. > >Opinions? Reliability is my main goal. If 3.5's are more reliable, I >will go that way. POinters to any "life span" test sites appreciated. > >Thanks, Notebook drives would have far more aggressive APM settings. This means that they could park their heads several times per minute, which in turn means they could very quickly exceed their rated load/unload cycles, especially if operated at 24/7. AIUI, some operating systems exacerbate this problem. Linux is particularly badly behaved in this regard, although there are workarounds. See the large counts in this thread: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=1271978934_27472%40mail.internode.on.net&forum_name=smartmontools-support - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
From: Arno on 30 Apr 2010 05:09 Franc Zabkar <fzabkar(a)iinternode.on.net> wrote: > On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 22:26:38 -0400, me <noemail(a)nothere.com> put > finger to keyboard and composed: >>Is it a good idea to use 2.5" drives in a server that's up 24x7? >> >>One part of me says "less power, less heat, that's good for them and >>the server and they are quieter too" and another part of me thinks >>that notebook drives fail more often. Then again, they get carted >>around all over the place, so their life in a notebook is kind of >>rough compared to sitting a metal box in a corner their entire life. >> >>Opinions? Reliability is my main goal. If 3.5's are more reliable, I >>will go that way. POinters to any "life span" test sites appreciated. >> >>Thanks, > Notebook drives would have far more aggressive APM settings. This > means that they could park their heads several times per minute, which > in turn means they could very quickly exceed their rated load/unload > cycles, especially if operated at 24/7. > AIUI, some operating systems exacerbate this problem. Linux is > particularly badly behaved in this regard, although there are > workarounds. > See the large counts in this thread: > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=1271978934_27472%40mail.internode.on.net&forum_name=smartmontools-support Good point. I seem to have forgotten this and have 578576 load cycles on one drive after less than 2 years. A "hdparm -B 254 /dev/<drive>" should fix this though. .... Yes, works. No additional Load Cycles in 30 minutes (before about 1 per 90 sec). Arno -- Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: arno(a)wagner.name GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F ---- Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans
From: Mark F on 30 Apr 2010 08:49
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 14:41:17 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote: > me wrote: > > > Is it a good idea to use 2.5" drives in a server that's up 24x7? > > No evidence that they dont survive fine in that config. Note that there are "server"/"enterprise" 2.5" drives as well as 2.5" "notebook" drives. The disk manufacturers would say that the server/enterprise drives are more reliable than their own notebook drives. > > > One part of me says "less power, less heat, that's good for them and the server > > Thats easily overstated with servers with adequate cooling. > > > and they are quieter too" and another part of me thinks that > > notebook drives fail more often. Then again, they get carted > > around all over the place, so their life in a notebook is kind of > > rough compared to sitting a metal box in a corner their entire life. > > Precisely. > > > Opinions? Reliability is my main goal. If 3.5's are more reliable, I will go that way. > > They do appear to be. > > > POinters to any "life span" test sites appreciated. > > No one bothers to do that, essentially because by the > time the test is complete, the drives are obsolete anyway. > > You do see some operations like google do some analysis of life spans seen, but > they dont generally use 2.5" drives, so thats not any practical use with this choice. > > The other obvious downsides with 2.5" drives is that they are much more expensive > per GB, slower than 3.5" drives and arent available in the same largest sizes either. > |