eBuyer Daily Deal. These seem to be robust NAS drives, that come with a 3 year limited warranty.
Product Description: Seagate IronWolf ST3000VN007 - hard drive - 3 TB - SATA 6Gb/s - Type: Hard drive - internal - Capacity: 3TB - Form Factor: 3.5" - Interface: SATA 6Gb/s - Data Transfer Rate: 600 MBps - Buffer Size: 64 MB - Spindle Speed: 5900 rpm - Features: Halogen Free,NAS compatible,24x7 availability,Dual-Plane Balance,Error Recovery Control - Dimensions (WxDxH): 101.6 mm x 146.99 mm x 26.11 mm - Weight: 610 g - Manufacturer Warranty: 3 years warranty
Tough. Ready. Scalable.For everything NAS, there’s IronWolf. Always on and always working, IronWolf is enhanced with AgileArray™ technology for optimal reliability and system agility. Multi-user technology and extreme workload rates allow IronWolf to perform and scale up with your enterprise.
Toshiba P300 High Performance 3TB Internal Hard Drive (Bulk) 3.5 Inch SATA from Amazon for under £71 delivered. Why pay £18 more for Seagate? Voted cold.
Rich44
15 Aug 17#3
This is a super robust NAS drive it's not about Toshiba vs Seagate it's about buying the right device for the right application.
This drive if you're stacking drives densely as in a NAS you'd buy this definitely not a 7200rpm performance drive.
If you want cheap fast bulk storage as a single drive in a PC then your Toshiba fits the bill.
It's not about capacity & price you've got to look at what a drive is built to be used for
CampGareth to Rich44
15 Aug 17#4
Except you can buy bottom tier hard drives and put them in a datacentre or NAS situation and be fine, BackBlaze are proof of that. The only thing to concern yourself with in my opinion is the warranty. A drive's warranty should last as long as you intend to keep the drive. In my case I bought some cheap 2TB Toshibas (£50 each!) with 2 year warranties, their warranties ended earlier this year and one's now died, which I'm fine with because it can be replaced with a 4TB now, or maybe an 8TB.
firstchoice to CampGareth
15 Aug 17#5
That works for Google and BackBlaze (and others) because they run hundreds/thousands of drives and their systems are tolerant of multiple drive failures but if you're building a home or small business sized NAS drive solution then normal desktop hard drives can be too risky.
NAS hard drives are designed to be used 24/7 and if they detect an error they can recover from it and map it out to allow the RAID array to continue without going into a degraded state. Conventional desktop drives don't have this error recovery functionality... and if they do have some of this functionality they don't resolve errors quickly enough and the RAID controller can then drop the drive out of the array, causing an otherwise OK drive to show as failed. If you lose one drive in a RAID 5 array then until you have replaced the faulty drive - and waited the time it takes for the array to rebuild - you're at risk that another error will cause you to lose data.
Similar is true for other RAID configurations in the home/small business situation where you'd tend to have 4 or fewer drives in your system (e.g. RAID 1 or RAID 10).
To me it's just not worth the risk of using drives that are not designed for the purpose.
CampGareth to firstchoice
15 Aug 17#6
So you'd rather a drive that has a failure silently tries to recover and doesn't report the error? No, I'd rather if a drive has a problem it gets dropped so a human can take a look at it, after all it's potentially the first of many errors. Incidentally, any RAID array that is unsafe in a degraded state isn't offering protection. This is why you'd run RAIDZ instead of pure RAID for instance, it adds checksums to prevent a URE during recovery killing the array.
Personally I live by the rule that each drive should be readable on its own, so no RAID 0, 5 or 6. RAID 1 only. If it needs to be bigger, use something that acts at the file level not block level. That's Ceph for me but there are simpler solutions out there.
benoj
15 Aug 17#7
Same price on amazon
Buckyball
16 Aug 17#8
Now £89.98 & £88.98
on Amazon
jazzyman
22 Aug 17#9
Can these drives be used for a normal additional drive for backing up files?
![Fresh Breakfast Meat Box (Using code) @ Campbells Meat [Haggis / Lorne Sausage / Bacon / Black Pudding & More]](/images/topics/208684_1.jpg)
![[Xbox One] Q. u. b. e: Director's Cut on Deals with Gold](/images/topics/208716_1.jpg)
Opening post
Product Description: Seagate IronWolf ST3000VN007 - hard drive - 3 TB - SATA 6Gb/s
- Type: Hard drive - internal
- Capacity: 3TB
- Form Factor: 3.5"
- Interface: SATA 6Gb/s
- Data Transfer Rate: 600 MBps
- Buffer Size: 64 MB
- Spindle Speed: 5900 rpm
- Features: Halogen Free,NAS compatible,24x7 availability,Dual-Plane Balance,Error Recovery Control
- Dimensions (WxDxH): 101.6 mm x 146.99 mm x 26.11 mm
- Weight: 610 g
- Manufacturer Warranty: 3 years warranty
Tough. Ready. Scalable.For everything NAS, there’s IronWolf. Always on and always working, IronWolf is enhanced with AgileArray™ technology for optimal reliability and system agility. Multi-user technology and extreme workload rates allow IronWolf to perform and scale up with your enterprise.
Best-Fit Applications
9 comments
This drive if you're stacking drives densely as in a NAS you'd buy this definitely not a 7200rpm performance drive.
If you want cheap fast bulk storage as a single drive in a PC then your Toshiba fits the bill.
It's not about capacity & price you've got to look at what a drive is built to be used for
NAS hard drives are designed to be used 24/7 and if they detect an error they can recover from it and map it out to allow the RAID array to continue without going into a degraded state. Conventional desktop drives don't have this error recovery functionality... and if they do have some of this functionality they don't resolve errors quickly enough and the RAID controller can then drop the drive out of the array, causing an otherwise OK drive to show as failed. If you lose one drive in a RAID 5 array then until you have replaced the faulty drive - and waited the time it takes for the array to rebuild - you're at risk that another error will cause you to lose data.
Similar is true for other RAID configurations in the home/small business situation where you'd tend to have 4 or fewer drives in your system (e.g. RAID 1 or RAID 10).
To me it's just not worth the risk of using drives that are not designed for the purpose.
Personally I live by the rule that each drive should be readable on its own, so no RAID 0, 5 or 6. RAID 1 only. If it needs to be bigger, use something that acts at the file level not block level. That's Ceph for me but there are simpler solutions out there.