Maybe I'm out of the loop as I haven't had a to buy a drive in a couple of years, but perhaps they're making this claim based on the 64MB cache. Last time I bought a drive, it had an 8MB cache, maybe 16 - I can't remember which.
I wish we could get the an iOS-based Apple Home Server.
I see that comment a lot and I have yet to see someone explain why an iOS based home server is better than a Mac OS one. Why a server that uses an OS that lacks a direct file access system or even common file system. among other issues. It seems to me that that would be counter intuitive.
I see that comment a lot and I have yet to see someone explain why an iOS based home server is better than a Mac OS one. Why a server that uses an OS that lacks a direct file access system or even common file system. among other issues. It seems to me that that would be counter intuitive.
iOS-based means the version of "OS X" that runs on ARM processors. Mac OS-based means X86-based processors. I don't see why Apple would use Atom or better processors in a home server when their A5 chips are fully capable of running a home server.
As for a file system, the OS is still hierarchal, it's just that CocoaTouch doesn't let the user access the file system. For a home server there would be no CocoaTouch.
I think part of the problem is that Apple has a bad reputation for using slow speed hard drives of dubious build quality, especially in their entry level products. As a result, when I first saw this article I was thinking "Oh lord, what clunker did they put in now?" but it could be worse. Edit: I would expect 7200rpm at least in a server-grade hard drive.
I am also interested in hearing people's RAID choices. I have always been a fan of RAID1 mirroring, and selected that type whenever possible and have never regretted it.
RAID is a smart choice. In conjunction with Time Machine, Time Capeule can be very useful but it really isn't a primary back up solution nor is it a server.
and I'll plug in my RAID 1 external storage. The Time Capsule does not convince me at all. WD Green is a poor quality harddrive, I would never buy it as my primary storage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolfactor
Based on what? Can you provide some facts and experience to back up your claim? I'm not saying you are wrong, but when making public statements, generally proof is needed for credibility.
He has no proof, only his personal opinion which is useless because we don't know who he is or what qualifications he has to make such a statement. The internet is full of anonymous posers who make statements as if they were undisputed facts. For every one of this guy who says WD Green is of poor quality there's another who will say the opposite. This is one of the many reasons I pay no attention to online user reviews. Anonymity makes any real information impossible. Pick any product at all and Google for negative opinions. You'll see what I mean.
I think part of the problem is that Apple has a bad reputation for using slow speed hard drives of dubious build quality, especially in their entry level products.
Only in your troubled tech wannabe mind. You personal opinion is worthless without evidence to back up your claim. I call B.S. on your claim.
The 3TB one is probably a WD AV-GP (WD30EURS), which is also silent, has 64MB of cache, and won't produce too much heat, which is important, of course, because the TimeCapsule has no fans.
The WD Green drives are of high quality. They are also energy efficient. This allows them to run cooler than a higher performance 7200 rpm drive like the scorpion series. Heat is the enemy of all electronics. Most "server class" hard drives are higher performance, but they are fan cooled. Most servers sound like jet engines.
I currently have a WD Dual 2t raid 1 NAS. It has been flawless for over two years. It is nearly silent. It does not need fans.
So, IMHO the green series is an excellent choice in the Time Capsule as the WiFi is currently not fast enough to make any use of the higher performance drives.
excellent comment. WD Green drives are an excellent choice for reliable storage. I wouldn't be surprised to actually see them in a server to save power, not that I would expect to see them in one.
personally, i would use a faster spinning drive, but this is a small storage product and it doesn't look like it has much room for a cooling solution.
however, apple shouldn't use the the term. it's just one of their stupid dumbed down marketing things. no matter - i don't think many people buy these things.
airport extreme is and always has been a way overpriced router. $180? i don't care how much range it has, it would be cheaper to buy 8 TP-LINK routers and you could hook up the whole neighborhood.
You do realize that a RAID one is striped and if it fails, you lose everything right? Your solution is no better than Apple's. You might want to read up on RAID and start with at least a RAID five.
Any other nominations for lolzworthy post of the day?
RAID1 is mirrored across two drives (not striped), arguably one of the safest and easiest RAIDs to implement.
1) Even if the drives aren't as rugged as some other drives if they use less power than other drives and come with comparable warranties I can see how many a server farm would use these drives.
2) There are few reason why Newegg would sell these in 20 packs. I'd say the most likely is for servers, though I suppose some mom-and-pop shops are buying them for the tower PCs they are making for customers.
If I was rolling out 20 junk PC's for a public library, which typically see infrequent drive usage and need to theoretically hold up over time, I'd consider a low-power 5400rpm drive.
However if I was building anything where speed of access was important (like a server), I'd be looking at 7200rpm or higher.
Only in your troubled tech wannabe mind. You personal opinion is worthless without evidence to back up your claim. I call B.S. on your claim.
Really? Are you not aware that Apple shipped 3400rpm drives with their iBooks? I believe they even did that in their original iMacs.
4200, 5400 and even 7200 rpm drives were all quite common at the time. It was a pure cost-cutting measure.
Now you may accept 3400rpm. You may even try to justify it by saying it uses less power. I would never, ever consider buying a 3400rpm drive for me or anyone else I am tasked with serving. Would you?
If I was rolling out 20 junk PC's for a public library, which typically see infrequent drive usage and need to theoretically hold up over time, I'd consider a low-power 5400rpm drive.
However if I was building anything where speed of access was important (like a server), I'd be looking at 7200rpm or higher.
You'd 2 and 3GB drives for junk PCs for a public library? We can't look at one spec.
Does anyone think these are value for money? Despite what drive is used and given their history? I really don't get Time Capsule's supposed appeal.
Honest question, I thought about one as I use an Airport Extreme at home, but the horror stories of failure rates put me off. Don;t jump down my throat with "it was only a small amount", cos they failed at an alarming rate.
Maybe because the drive met their quality and price targets better than the alternatives?
And maybe you should turn the argument around - since it was shown to be a non-issue 2 years ago, why are people still whining about the same darned issue? Are the Apple-haters really that incapable of learning?
Oh, and btw, 'everyone and their grandmother is writing about this' is nonsense. A few techy sites are discussing it, but I would bet that AT LEAST 95% of the target audience for Time Capsule has never even heard of the issue.
Maybe you should think a little deeper about the issue.
Who gives a shit about quality and price targets in this argument... this is about the words, "server grade". You yourself said that 95% of the target audience has never heard of the issue... therefore it must mean that the target audience doesn't give a rat's ass about the word "server". So why even use the word knowing full well that it will cause a furor in the tech community. (oh... and by the way... try googling "caviar green" and page after page is about different blogs, tech sites, newspapers covering this story).
Any other nominations for lolzworthy post of the day?
RAID1 is mirrored across two drives (not striped), arguably one of the safest and easiest RAIDs to implement.
My mistake. I was speaking about RAID arrays yesterday to a friend that has a RAID 0 and thinks that this was enough. I was telling him to go to RAID 1 at least or RAID 5 if he can afford to by a better server system. I have 2. A Drobo backing to a WD ShareSpace.
My mistake. I was speaking about RAID arrays yesterday to a friend that has a RAID 0 and thinks that this was enough. I was telling him to go to RAID 1 at least or RAID 5 if he can afford to by a better server system. I have 2. A Drobo backing to a WD ShareSpace.
RAID 5 has a couple of problems.
1. With high capacity drives, it takes forever to rebuild a replaced drive. You are also taxing the drives a lot, risking the future reliability of remaining drives.
2. When one drive goes, it suffers big performance problems while rebuilding the replacement.
Use RAID 10 instead.
As for Drobo? Well, I have no experience myself, but it seems expensive given the performance, and I'm not sure I trust their proprietary technology. If their controller board breaks, it seems to be a pain to move the drives to a new unit. Maybe you can comment.
1. With high capacity drives, it takes forever to rebuild a replaced drive. You are also taxing the drives a lot, risking the future reliability of remaining drives.
2. When one drive goes, it suffers big performance problems while rebuilding the replacement.
Use RAID 10 instead.
As for Drobo? Well, I have no experience myself, but it seems expensive given the performance, and I'm not sure I trust their proprietary technology. If their controller board breaks, it seems to be a pain to move the drives to a new unit. Maybe you can comment.
RAID 10 would be great but the problem is that what is done is done. I would have to move everything off of the Drobo, format it and put it back. As for the controller failing, the way it works as I understand it is, I simply get a new Drobo unit (bought mine in Europe. Automatic 2 year warranty. Thank you EU) and put the drives back in. The new controller will simply pick up from where it left off. As it appears, there are good in bad in every configuration it seems. Right now, I have 10TB in RAID 5, which gives me about half. This should be plenty for the next few years. I have 4TB on my WD ShareSpace in RAID 5 as well, or about half. I will move all off the WD and then put in some 3TB drives, set it to RAID 10 and continue the way I am going.
Now that I think about it. I will try to get an estimate as to how long it would take me to move all off the Drobo and to format for RAID 10, and then put it all back on. If it is a matter of hours or even a day, I might go ahead and do it.
There are loads "solutions" in the marketplace to address the task but following the 3-2-1 method will help filter the marketing noise from what method works best for your individual needs.
Backup, Redundancy, Archive, Availability, Hardware RAID, Software RAID, Uptime, Offline, Recovery Time, Disk Images, NAS, File Server, Backup Server, Data Migration, File Corruption, Bit-Rot, Snapshots, ZFS... oh, how the subject is vast and the options are plentiful (dizzying?).
What matters most is identifying your specific needs, creating a backup strategy to match your comfort and risk scenario, then picking the appropriate methods (see guide above). Armed with that in mind, you know the risk, reward, and expectation behind your backup approach.
Also, for those who haven't seen it, I suggest looking at this article from Small Net Builder on RAID. It suggests where and when they think it's appropriate.
Again, everybody's needs are unique. A 60 TB rSync'd backup solution makes a lot of sense to some people, while a humble external drive, thumb drive, and a free Mozy, Carbonite, or Skydrive account might be the perfect fit for others.
Simply put, learn each method's risk/benefit on your own timetable. It's a whole lot easier than a crash course when you've lost those precious bits and bytes....
...and you need the free resources or paid services from this site I found for my sister,
Comments
I wish we could get the an iOS-based Apple Home Server.
I see that comment a lot and I have yet to see someone explain why an iOS based home server is better than a Mac OS one. Why a server that uses an OS that lacks a direct file access system or even common file system. among other issues. It seems to me that that would be counter intuitive.
I see that comment a lot and I have yet to see someone explain why an iOS based home server is better than a Mac OS one. Why a server that uses an OS that lacks a direct file access system or even common file system. among other issues. It seems to me that that would be counter intuitive.
iOS-based means the version of "OS X" that runs on ARM processors. Mac OS-based means X86-based processors. I don't see why Apple would use Atom or better processors in a home server when their A5 chips are fully capable of running a home server.
As for a file system, the OS is still hierarchal, it's just that CocoaTouch doesn't let the user access the file system. For a home server there would be no CocoaTouch.
I think part of the problem is that Apple has a bad reputation for using slow speed hard drives of dubious build quality, especially in their entry level products. As a result, when I first saw this article I was thinking "Oh lord, what clunker did they put in now?" but it could be worse. Edit: I would expect 7200rpm at least in a server-grade hard drive.
I am also interested in hearing people's RAID choices. I have always been a fan of RAID1 mirroring, and selected that type whenever possible and have never regretted it.
RAID is a smart choice. In conjunction with Time Machine, Time Capeule can be very useful but it really isn't a primary back up solution nor is it a server.
and I'll plug in my RAID 1 external storage. The Time Capsule does not convince me at all. WD Green is a poor quality harddrive, I would never buy it as my primary storage.
Based on what? Can you provide some facts and experience to back up your claim? I'm not saying you are wrong, but when making public statements, generally proof is needed for credibility.
He has no proof, only his personal opinion which is useless because we don't know who he is or what qualifications he has to make such a statement. The internet is full of anonymous posers who make statements as if they were undisputed facts. For every one of this guy who says WD Green is of poor quality there's another who will say the opposite. This is one of the many reasons I pay no attention to online user reviews. Anonymity makes any real information impossible. Pick any product at all and Google for negative opinions. You'll see what I mean.
I think part of the problem is that Apple has a bad reputation for using slow speed hard drives of dubious build quality, especially in their entry level products.
Only in your troubled tech wannabe mind. You personal opinion is worthless without evidence to back up your claim. I call B.S. on your claim.
The WD Green drives are of high quality. They are also energy efficient. This allows them to run cooler than a higher performance 7200 rpm drive like the scorpion series. Heat is the enemy of all electronics. Most "server class" hard drives are higher performance, but they are fan cooled. Most servers sound like jet engines.
I currently have a WD Dual 2t raid 1 NAS. It has been flawless for over two years. It is nearly silent. It does not need fans.
So, IMHO the green series is an excellent choice in the Time Capsule as the WiFi is currently not fast enough to make any use of the higher performance drives.
excellent comment. WD Green drives are an excellent choice for reliable storage. I wouldn't be surprised to actually see them in a server to save power, not that I would expect to see them in one.
personally, i would use a faster spinning drive, but this is a small storage product and it doesn't look like it has much room for a cooling solution.
however, apple shouldn't use the the term. it's just one of their stupid dumbed down marketing things. no matter - i don't think many people buy these things.
airport extreme is and always has been a way overpriced router. $180? i don't care how much range it has, it would be cheaper to buy 8 TP-LINK routers and you could hook up the whole neighborhood.
You do realize that a RAID one is striped and if it fails, you lose everything right? Your solution is no better than Apple's. You might want to read up on RAID and start with at least a RAID five.
Any other nominations for lolzworthy post of the day?
RAID1 is mirrored across two drives (not striped), arguably one of the safest and easiest RAIDs to implement.
1) Even if the drives aren't as rugged as some other drives if they use less power than other drives and come with comparable warranties I can see how many a server farm would use these drives.
2) There are few reason why Newegg would sell these in 20 packs. I'd say the most likely is for servers, though I suppose some mom-and-pop shops are buying them for the tower PCs they are making for customers.
Depends on the usage, really.
If I was rolling out 20 junk PC's for a public library, which typically see infrequent drive usage and need to theoretically hold up over time, I'd consider a low-power 5400rpm drive.
However if I was building anything where speed of access was important (like a server), I'd be looking at 7200rpm or higher.
Only in your troubled tech wannabe mind. You personal opinion is worthless without evidence to back up your claim. I call B.S. on your claim.
Really? Are you not aware that Apple shipped 3400rpm drives with their iBooks? I believe they even did that in their original iMacs.
4200, 5400 and even 7200 rpm drives were all quite common at the time. It was a pure cost-cutting measure.
Now you may accept 3400rpm. You may even try to justify it by saying it uses less power. I would never, ever consider buying a 3400rpm drive for me or anyone else I am tasked with serving. Would you?
Depends on the usage, really.
If I was rolling out 20 junk PC's for a public library, which typically see infrequent drive usage and need to theoretically hold up over time, I'd consider a low-power 5400rpm drive.
However if I was building anything where speed of access was important (like a server), I'd be looking at 7200rpm or higher.
You'd 2 and 3GB drives for junk PCs for a public library? We can't look at one spec.
Honest question, I thought about one as I use an Airport Extreme at home, but the horror stories of failure rates put me off. Don;t jump down my throat with "it was only a small amount", cos they failed at an alarming rate.
Just askin' is all....
Maybe because the drive met their quality and price targets better than the alternatives?
And maybe you should turn the argument around - since it was shown to be a non-issue 2 years ago, why are people still whining about the same darned issue? Are the Apple-haters really that incapable of learning?
Oh, and btw, 'everyone and their grandmother is writing about this' is nonsense. A few techy sites are discussing it, but I would bet that AT LEAST 95% of the target audience for Time Capsule has never even heard of the issue.
Maybe you should think a little deeper about the issue.
Who gives a shit about quality and price targets in this argument... this is about the words, "server grade". You yourself said that 95% of the target audience has never heard of the issue... therefore it must mean that the target audience doesn't give a rat's ass about the word "server". So why even use the word knowing full well that it will cause a furor in the tech community. (oh... and by the way... try googling "caviar green" and page after page is about different blogs, tech sites, newspapers covering this story).
Any other nominations for lolzworthy post of the day?
RAID1 is mirrored across two drives (not striped), arguably one of the safest and easiest RAIDs to implement.
My mistake. I was speaking about RAID arrays yesterday to a friend that has a RAID 0 and thinks that this was enough. I was telling him to go to RAID 1 at least or RAID 5 if he can afford to by a better server system. I have 2. A Drobo backing to a WD ShareSpace.
My mistake. I was speaking about RAID arrays yesterday to a friend that has a RAID 0 and thinks that this was enough. I was telling him to go to RAID 1 at least or RAID 5 if he can afford to by a better server system. I have 2. A Drobo backing to a WD ShareSpace.
RAID 5 has a couple of problems.
1. With high capacity drives, it takes forever to rebuild a replaced drive. You are also taxing the drives a lot, risking the future reliability of remaining drives.
2. When one drive goes, it suffers big performance problems while rebuilding the replacement.
Use RAID 10 instead.
As for Drobo? Well, I have no experience myself, but it seems expensive given the performance, and I'm not sure I trust their proprietary technology. If their controller board breaks, it seems to be a pain to move the drives to a new unit. Maybe you can comment.
RAID 5 has a couple of problems.
1. With high capacity drives, it takes forever to rebuild a replaced drive. You are also taxing the drives a lot, risking the future reliability of remaining drives.
2. When one drive goes, it suffers big performance problems while rebuilding the replacement.
Use RAID 10 instead.
As for Drobo? Well, I have no experience myself, but it seems expensive given the performance, and I'm not sure I trust their proprietary technology. If their controller board breaks, it seems to be a pain to move the drives to a new unit. Maybe you can comment.
RAID 10 would be great but the problem is that what is done is done. I would have to move everything off of the Drobo, format it and put it back. As for the controller failing, the way it works as I understand it is, I simply get a new Drobo unit (bought mine in Europe. Automatic 2 year warranty. Thank you EU) and put the drives back in. The new controller will simply pick up from where it left off. As it appears, there are good in bad in every configuration it seems. Right now, I have 10TB in RAID 5, which gives me about half. This should be plenty for the next few years. I have 4TB on my WD ShareSpace in RAID 5 as well, or about half. I will move all off the WD and then put in some 3TB drives, set it to RAID 10 and continue the way I am going.
Now that I think about it. I will try to get an estimate as to how long it would take me to move all off the Drobo and to format for RAID 10, and then put it all back on. If it is a matter of hours or even a day, I might go ahead and do it.
4 out of 5 stars.
By the way, Apple will be buying in orders of 10,000 drives and they will have custom SMART interfaces managing the drives.
Example of a competent user:
5 EGGS: works with ICH10R
Pros: Huge size. 4K sectors. Higher data density than Hitachi 3TB means better manufacturing tech.
Included HBA card not needed for ICH10R chipset with Intel RST driver 10.5.0.1026.
Cons: Price but you get a better product for it.
Driver update is needed for Intel ICH10R but not a fault of the drive.
Can't boot from it with ICH10R unless BIOS supports.
Other Thoughts: Full size available with ICH10R chipset in RAID mode with RST driver version 10.5.0.1026
Might only work in RAID mode. Haven't tried ACHI. Make sure your BIOS is set to RAID mode as Intel recommends.
Here's an exemplary discussion and guide, co-developed with the US Library of Congress and the American Society of Media Photographers:
http://www.dpbestflow.org/node/262
There are loads "solutions" in the marketplace to address the task but following the 3-2-1 method will help filter the marketing noise from what method works best for your individual needs.
Backup, Redundancy, Archive, Availability, Hardware RAID, Software RAID, Uptime, Offline, Recovery Time, Disk Images, NAS, File Server, Backup Server, Data Migration, File Corruption, Bit-Rot, Snapshots, ZFS... oh, how the subject is vast and the options are plentiful (dizzying?).
What matters most is identifying your specific needs, creating a backup strategy to match your comfort and risk scenario, then picking the appropriate methods (see guide above). Armed with that in mind, you know the risk, reward, and expectation behind your backup approach.
Also, for those who haven't seen it, I suggest looking at this article from Small Net Builder on RAID. It suggests where and when they think it's appropriate.
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/nas/n...s-dont-do-raid
Again, everybody's needs are unique. A 60 TB rSync'd backup solution makes a lot of sense to some people, while a humble external drive, thumb drive, and a free Mozy, Carbonite, or Skydrive account might be the perfect fit for others.
Simply put, learn each method's risk/benefit on your own timetable. It's a whole lot easier than a crash course when you've lost those precious bits and bytes....
...and you need the free resources or paid services from this site I found for my sister,
http://www.myharddrivedied.com/