any significant difference between WD desktop and server HDDs for 210j?

[eikka]

any significant difference between WD desktop and server HDDs for 210j? UPDATED!

Hi,

Should I worry which type of drive to use in RAID1 configuration for DS-210j in casual home networking (file storage for large and small media files, streaming, backup)?

* WD1002FAEX (1TB desktop disk, ~ 99 euros)
* WD15EADS (1.5TB desktop disk, ~ 106 euros)
* WD1002FBYX (1TB server disk, ~ 135 euros)

Synology's site says YES for compatibility to all:
http://www.synology.com/support/faq_show.php?lang=enu&q_id=130#three_n

...but surfing the net I have found some users warning that the lack of some error resilience features of the desktop disk will cause problems in RAID use.

Should I worry about this difference at all in my casual use? Or are there some other brands that have better (reliable/cooler/faster) products in 1TB HDD category ?

Thanks in advance!

 

[claykin]

TLER

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TLER

 

[eikka]

Hmmm...

Thanks for the info.

This is what I found digging about the differences (from QNAP forums)

Thank you for contacting Western Digital Customer Service and Support. My name is Joan R.

Is this NAS device working on a RAID? If so, Western Digital manufactures desktop edition hard drives (Caviar Green) and RAID Edition hard drives. Each type of hard drive is designed to work specifically in either a desktop computer environment or a demanding enterprise environment.

If you install and use a desktop edition hard drive connected to a RAID controller, the drive may not work correctly unless jointly qualified by an enterprise OEM. This is caused by the normal error recovery procedure that a desktop edition hard drive uses.

When an error is found on a desktop edition hard drive, the drive will enter into a deep recovery cycle to attempt to repair the error, recover the data from the problematic area, and then reallocate a dedicated area to replace the problematic area. This process can take up to 2 minutes depending on the severity of the issue. Most RAID controllers allow a very short amount of time for a hard drive to recover from an error. If a hard drive takes too long to complete this process, the drive will be dropped from the RAID array. Most RAID controllers allow from 7 to 15 seconds for error recovery before dropping a hard drive from an array. Western Digital does not recommend installing desktop edition hard drives in an enterprise environment (on a RAID controller).

Western Digital RAID edition hard drives have a feature called TLER (Time Limited Error Recovery) which stops the hard drive from entering into a deep recovery cycle. The hard drive will only spend 7 seconds to attempt to recover. This means that the hard drive will not be dropped from a RAID array. Though TLER is designed for RAID environments, it is fully compatible and will not be detrimental when used in non-RAID environments.

I hope that we have met your expectations today and that you are satisfied with our service. If you have any further questions, please reply to this email and we will be happy to assist you further.

Sincerely,
Joan R.
Western Digital Service and Support

>source post<

Looks like WD's opinion about the suitability of desktop disks for RAIDed NAS is different from the Synology's opinion?

Now... who's correct...

 

[eikka]

Ok, read complaints elsewhere on WD (some weird performance measured with green drives) and Seagate (clicking and unreliable) drives. I jumped the gun and bought 410j and 3 Samsung HD154UI 1.5TB disks. These were recommended by the users, had good ratings at NewEgg.com and I found them cool and quiet as a breeze! I just hope they have the lasting power as well.

After setting them up with Hybrid Raid (SHR) I have made some file copying measurements with my quad core Q9300 Vista 32bit system:

6GB file transfer from 410j share folder to Vista desktop:

samba: about 32MBps (windows file transfer client dialog)
ftp: about 48MBps (firefox browser downloads dialog)

Who could explain why my samba transfer was so much slower than FTP??

The 410j CPU was on 40% load with samba file transfer so CPU shouldn't be the bottleneck.

410j is connected to my gigabit Ethernet switch (DIR655) and so is my PC.