Note that currently, the MAX capacity drive using SMR is the 6TB WD60EFAX, with 3 platters / 6 heads… So… is that it? Is WD USING RAID / more demanding users as “guinea pigs” to test SMR and then move on and use SMR on +14TB drives? I’m thinking YES!! And this is VERY BAD NEWS. Why is that? Why keep SMR and PMR drives with the SAME capacity in the same line and HIDING this info from customers? So they can target “specific” markets with the SMR drives? It seems like a marketing TEST!!! How BIG is it? I say this because, WD has the same “infected SMR drives” using the well known PMR tech! It can be… BUT, before that happens, WD is probably using the most demanding customers / environments to TEST SMR tech so they can DEPLOY them in the bigger capacity DRIVES: 8, 10, 12, 14TB and beyond (do not currently exist). Someone said this is part of a RACE for BIGGER capacities. Unlike many home NAS operations, resilvering makes many write operations to different parts of the disk, and this is a usage pattern that SMR performs poorly on. When you plug in a new drive, “resilvering” is the ZFS file system reconstructing the old disk’s contents on the new disk using the redundant information. When one disk fails, (if you have set things up right), you lose no data, because of the redundancy.
I sure wish WD would make a clear statement on the matter.īackground on “ZFS resilvering”: ZFS is a kind of filesystem which uses multiple disks and redundancy to achieve high reliability. Unfortunately, I don’t entirely believe it. This is different information than appears in other forums. No, there is no public WD document presently which clearly answers this question of SMR, and fitness for ZFS use.(They did not answer specifically about performing well during resilvering.) Yes, WD60EFAX models are certified to be used in ZFS.I asked them if my four 6TB WD60EFAX-68SHWNO drives are SMR, and if they were certified to function well when used in a ZFS filesystem doing a resilvering operation. For what it’s worth, I just contacted WD support.
0 kommentar(er)
