locked
Please recommend a 1 TB drive as system drive RRS feed

  • Question

  •  

    I am shopping for a new 1TB system drive for my WHS. I currently have a WD10EACS and it couldn't be any slower, can't handle the GB lan.

     

    These are the three I am looking at, but there could be others, I do not know. I am looking for personal experiences as well. The Samsung is probably the fastest one, but I think it's not designed for server use.

     

     

    Seagate Barracuda ES.2 with NCQ (1000 GB SATA) : ST31000340NS

     

    Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000 with NCQ (1000 GB SATA) : HDS721010KLA330

     

    Samsung Spinpoint F1 with NCQ (1000 GB SATA) : HD103UJ

     

    Tuesday, May 6, 2008 6:11 PM

All replies

  • I'm a proponent of having spead-out storage, 3-4 disks, putting all your eggs in one basket defeats the purpose. Get a couple high-performing 500GB drives instead, have speed plus redundancy.

     

     BigCat400 wrote:

     

    I am shopping for a new 1TB system drive for my WHS. I currently have a WD10EACS and it couldn't be any slower, can't handle the GB lan.

     

    These are the three I am looking at, but there could be others, I do not know. I am looking for personal experiences as well. The Samsung is probably the fastest one, but I think it's not designed for server use.

     

     

    Seagate Barracuda ES.2 with NCQ (1000 GB SATA) : ST31000340NS

     

    Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000 with NCQ (1000 GB SATA) : HDS721010KLA330

     

    Samsung Spinpoint F1 with NCQ (1000 GB SATA) : HD103UJ

     

    Tuesday, May 6, 2008 6:15 PM
  • Well I would buy a few 500GB drives instead, spread out your storage and have speed and redundancy. I don't think I trust new model HDDs until they've been out a while.

     

     BigCat400 wrote:

     

    I am shopping for a new 1TB system drive for my WHS. I currently have a WD10EACS and it couldn't be any slower, can't handle the GB lan.

     

    These are the three I am looking at, but there could be others, I do not know. I am looking for personal experiences as well. The Samsung is probably the fastest one, but I think it's not designed for server use.

     

     

    Seagate Barracuda ES.2 with NCQ (1000 GB SATA) : ST31000340NS

     

    Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000 with NCQ (1000 GB SATA) : HDS721010KLA330

     

    Samsung Spinpoint F1 with NCQ (1000 GB SATA) : HD103UJ

     

    Tuesday, May 6, 2008 6:18 PM
  • Thanks. I was thinking of using the 1TB I already have as a data drive on my system, which already has another 320GB drive as well.

     

    I believe the system drive should be the largest drive (recommended at I guess), that's why I am looking for another 1TB.

     

     Whizard72 wrote:

    Well I would buy a few 500GB drives instead, spread out your storage and have speed and redundancy. I don't think I trust new model HDDs until they've been out a while.

     

     BigCat400 wrote:

     

    I am shopping for a new 1TB system drive for my WHS. I currently have a WD10EACS and it couldn't be any slower, can't handle the GB lan.

     

    These are the three I am looking at, but there could be others, I do not know. I am looking for personal experiences as well. The Samsung is probably the fastest one, but I think it's not designed for server use.

     

     

    Seagate Barracuda ES.2 with NCQ (1000 GB SATA) : ST31000340NS

     

    Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000 with NCQ (1000 GB SATA) : HDS721010KLA330

     

    Samsung Spinpoint F1 with NCQ (1000 GB SATA) : HD103UJ

     

    Tuesday, May 6, 2008 6:35 PM
  • I shop for drives purely based on price and features. Which of those drives will best meet your needs at an adequately low price? And have you considered 750 GB drives instead, which are around 40% cheaper/GB?
    Tuesday, May 6, 2008 6:36 PM
    Moderator
  • Right, that's because the largest amount of data that can be placed on the server at one time is the size of the 1st data partition. So if you have a 320GB hdd as your boot HDD, then the size of the 1st data partition is:

     

    DiskSize - 20GB = 1st DATA Part.  (320GB - 20GB = 300GB 1st data partition)

     

    So as long as you won't be moving more than 300GB at one time (backup, copy, etc) then you're fine. Personally, I tend to be lean on the client side, I'll never actually have 300GB of date on my client PCs because all my movies, pictures, etc are on shares on the server.

     

     BigCat400 wrote:

    Thanks. I was thinking of using the 1TB I already have as a data drive on my system, which already has another 320GB drive as well.

     

    I believe the system drive should be the largest drive (recommended at I guess), that's why I am looking for another 1TB.

     

     Whizard72 wrote:

    Well I would buy a few 500GB drives instead, spread out your storage and have speed and redundancy. I don't think I trust new model HDDs until they've been out a while.

     

     BigCat400 wrote:

     

    I am shopping for a new 1TB system drive for my WHS. I currently have a WD10EACS and it couldn't be any slower, can't handle the GB lan.

     

    These are the three I am looking at, but there could be others, I do not know. I am looking for personal experiences as well. The Samsung is probably the fastest one, but I think it's not designed for server use.

     

     

    Seagate Barracuda ES.2 with NCQ (1000 GB SATA) : ST31000340NS

     

    Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000 with NCQ (1000 GB SATA) : HDS721010KLA330

     

    Samsung Spinpoint F1 with NCQ (1000 GB SATA) : HD103UJ

     

    Tuesday, May 6, 2008 9:59 PM
  • If you have enough ports to attach drives, I will also recommend a 500GB as the system drive and spend the rest on additional drives. It is cheaper per GB too.  The system drive in a set up with more than 2 drives is mostly empty, which translates to waste.  It is true that the recommendation is to make the system drive the biggest, but beyond 300GB I doubt whether there is any additional benefit.

     

    Seth

     

    Wednesday, May 7, 2008 1:24 AM
  • wow thanks. I did not know that (about the system drive being wasted with more than 2 drives).

     

    So my current setup as we speak is 1TB drive as system drive and a 320GB drive as second drive (just two drives). From what you are saying I guess this is OK since it's only two drives (I assume the TB drive is not being wasted in this case). Could you please share your thoughts on the two scenarios below? just to complete the discussion.

     

    a) What would happen if I switched these drives? In other words, make the 320GB drive the system drive (since it is the faster drive) and make the TB drive the system drive. Will WHS still use all the space efficiently? (I understand the landing zone limitation though so dont worry about this part).

     

    b) Now let's say I decide to get a 500GB drive as per suggestions here, for a total of 3 drives, what would be the preferred setup? Should I then make the 320 GB the system drive, and leave the TB drive and 500GB drive as just data drives?

     

     Setho wrote:

    If you have enough ports to attach drives, I will also recommend a 500GB as the system drive and spend the rest on additional drives. It is cheaper per GB too.  The system drive in a set up with more than 2 drives is mostly empty, which translates to waste.  It is true that the recommendation is to make the system drive the biggest, but beyond 300GB I doubt whether there is any additional benefit.

     

    Seth

     

    Wednesday, May 7, 2008 12:54 PM
  • I believe that WHS attempts to move data off the system drive as soon as possible, therefore for the first scenario with only 2 drives, if there is no folder duplication there should be no difference in efficiency.  For the second scenario, I will suggest that the system drive be the 320GB drive.  If you have folder duplication you will be able to duplicate 500GB of data without needing the system drive, and if there is no duplication you have access to that much more.

     

    There is a disk management add in that is quite useful and that will give you information about the drives in your system available at http://www.wegotserved.co.uk/windows-home-server-add-ins

     

    Seth

    Wednesday, May 7, 2008 4:19 PM
  •  BigCat400 wrote:

    I currently have a WD10EACS and it couldn't be any slower, can't handle the GB lan.

     

    Are you sure this is the drive's fault? Have you looked with the performance tools to see how much of the time the drive is actually busy? I also have three of the 1 TB WD GP drives. I bought them after reviewing the available performance test information on the web, knowing that this data indicated that they were slower in the far margins of the stress test benchmark cases. But what I'm getting at is that WHS is so slow in I/O for the managed data that I find it hard to imagine that it ever gets anywhere near the points where the WD was showing slower in the stress cases. I don't think the drive is the limiting factor yet. You might get one of the ES.2s and discover that it was a little faster in some cases when you were expecting it to be a lot faster in all cases.

     

    I enabled NCQ on the GP and percieve zero difference in performance. I haven't run any controlled performance tests. Again, in part, because WHS is so slow that it seems like it would be hard to design a meaningful case that would really show what the drive was doing vs. what the OS was doing.

    Friday, May 9, 2008 6:14 PM
  • I actually believe you are correct. I've played the last 3/4 days with different drives as the system drives and haven't seen much of an improvement. I even tried a RAID0 array with 2 raptors I had. Even with all duplication turned off, WHS just appears to be extremely slow writing data. I am wondering if PP1 will make this better.

     

    I am just extremely curious as to how some people here have managed to transfer data to the server at speeds beyond 80 MB/s (Yes, mega bytes). I really can't transfer anything beyond 30 MB/s, the transfer typically starts at 30 and slows down to about 20 and even below sometimes. This is on GB lan.

     

     

     *** Watson wrote:

     BigCat400 wrote:

    I currently have a WD10EACS and it couldn't be any slower, can't handle the GB lan.

     

    Are you sure this is the drive's fault? Have you looked with the performance tools to see how much of the time the drive is actually busy? I also have three of the 1 TB WD GP drives. I bought them after reviewing the available performance test information on the web, knowing that this data indicated that they were slower in the far margins of the stress test benchmark cases. But what I'm getting at is that WHS is so slow in I/O for the managed data that I find it hard to imagine that it ever gets anywhere near the points where the WD was showing slower in the stress cases. I don't think the drive is the limiting factor yet. You might get one of the ES.2s and discover that it was a little faster in some cases when you were expecting it to be a lot faster in all cases.

     

    I enabled NCQ on the GP and percieve zero difference in performance. I haven't run any controlled performance tests. Again, in part, because WHS is so slow that it seems like it would be hard to design a meaningful case that would really show what the drive was doing vs. what the OS was doing.

    Friday, May 9, 2008 7:43 PM
  • With a single drive, there's no performance penalty from Drive Extender. You will see the full throughput that your systems are capable of, given network, disks, etc. Add even one disk to the storage pool and Drive Extender will start to overwhelm all other factors. Duplication is not at fault here (and thruing it off doesn't help), it's overhead from maintaining tombstones and shadow files. Typically I see performance in the range of 3-5 MB/s on gigabit ethernet (no jumbo frames because my test server doesn't support them, but in my experience it doesn't matter if they're turned on or not) with my production server. This is in line with what others have reported.

    Improvements have been made in this area in Power Pack 1; I see throughput around 12-15 MB/s on my test server (same GB lan). With jumbo frames I would expect to see somewhat higher throughput.

    The above is all write performance. Read performance is much better, at least in my environment. On large files it's as much as 25-30 MB/s, and hasn't changed a lot in PP1.
    Friday, May 9, 2008 8:54 PM
    Moderator
  • Hi,

    In web hosting if I want to increase storage is it seamless to the application?

    Meaning I have initial of 5GB storage. then my files and db grows out and I want say 500GB more.

    Is the additional storage transparent to my application?.

    In other words do i have to write logic to query different storage locations or is that transparent.

    In layman terms can my C drive view to the application have one TB of space?

    Please let me know.

    Wednesday, May 21, 2008 12:53 AM
  • This is the Windows Home Server forum, I'm afraid, and not the place to baq asking basic questions about web server operations...
    Wednesday, May 21, 2008 2:43 AM
    Moderator
  • well I thought it was related...
    do you have the answer, if so please feel free to pitch in.
    Wednesday, May 21, 2008 9:03 AM