Why are you not supposed to use one NAS drive in a regular PC?

Typically, drives meant for dedicated storage devices are slower than "working drives." You trade speed for reliability.

You don't have to consider this in generalities though. Go find two drives to compare and look at the raw advertised specs. Decide for yourself. You might find that there archival drives are plenty good enough for you.

>>61390138
But both NAS and regular drives are 7200 rpms with the same amount of cache.

Isn't that the same performance?

>>61390097
If you're just using them for data storage and put all your programs on an SSD, they're fine, even preferable.

>>61390097
I have 5 WD Reds on my desktop (and a 6tb on the way) - They're great and I've never been inconvenienced or noticed any problems.

>>61390315
That was supposed to be 6th, but it also happens to be another 6TB.

>>61390167
Not necessarily. Check sequential and random read/write speed benchmarks.

I did some Googling.

Time Limited Error Recovery applies to all NAS drives because they're meant for RAID. It reduces the time for the drive to fix errors because RAID is intolerable to it.

Won't NAS drives in a non-RAID configuration fail much faster because of this?

>>61390097
I have 2 WD Reds in my PC

for movies and TV it's more than good

>>61390097
REDs are not any better than BLUEs. Literally same shit except REDs support this one feautre i forgot about which is useful for some raid configurations in some rare cases.

>>61390508
this? >>61390420

TLER

>>61390531
Yeah i think so. I remember this feature is not always useful and more often unneeded and better without it. Depends on OS if i recall correctly.

>>61390563
Correct, I discovered the file system ZFS manages something similar to TLER, probably couple more file systems doing the same

>>61390420
if you're running say, a 20+ disk raid for important business shit 24/7, would you rather;
a. a disk which hangs for a minute trying to figure out a bad sector
b. a disk which just bails on it and lets the system deal with the result (which it can if you use something like ZFS)

it's useful in a redundant setup, but might cause higher data loss in other situations (single disk, no redundancy, like 99% of home users)

>>61390663
That's what got me worrying.

So NAS drives aren't good in a non RAID configuration for regular desktops

>>61390328
Everything is coming up Millhouse!

>>61390670
not really, but then again, if you're not using redundancy, then you clearly don't care about the data stored on it

>>61390696
Redundancy isn't really making your data more safe though...

>>61390097

Also regular drives might have power saving / sleep state caoabilities. The reading head of drive parks itself in idle. Green drives have very agressive idle state power saving. The reading head parks itself between every write/read.

>>61390701
it is when coupled with checksumming (which zfs also does), if a disk in a zfs raid returns a bad sector, zfs will detect it and overwrite it with good data automatically
overwriting a bad sector causes a reallocation of that sector, making it logically good again

in a no redundancy scenario, a bad sector is simply lost data, you can overwrite it, but you have no way of know it was bad (without checksums) or what the good data was (redundancy)

>>61390701
That's literally what it does

>>61390772
I wasn't aware of that. Head parking when something is being written or read is a pretty serious case.

I use this to keep my archival drives spinning, no idea if it keeps the head parking off the drive but I never have load issues when I decide to use it.
https://github.com/stsrki/keepalivehd

>>61390781
True, that makes sense

>>61390097
>Why are you not supposed to use one NAS drive in a regular PC?
>NAS
>one drive
Because that completely defeats the point of a NAS, you need multiple disks to not only attain lots of raw storage space but you also protect/mitigate the data from being lost by using RAID.

>>61390097
The 8TB WD Red is inside the WD MyBook External backup, its $180 right now.

I bought 3.
Then 1 more.
Got 32TB if big dick swinging RAID0 storage.
Yes, RAID0. I dont care about the data, and its backed up to like 4 other places.

Probably got another 12TB of externals lying around. new RAID is only 15% full

>>61390097
>They are so much cheaper than regular drives
Wait what? What are you comparing them against?

>>61393007
WD Red versus WD Gold, IronWolf vs Barracuda Pro

>>61395304
WD Gold is an enterprise SATA drive. Regular consumer would be Blue (generic), Green (low-power), or Black (performance).

>>61395536
They don't sell Black and Green anymore. Green became Blue and Black became Gold

>>61395536
Greens don'y exist anymore

>>61395615
Gold was previously "Re." It has TLER and other RAID-oriented features, it's not a replacement for Black.

>>61395304
>WD Gold, IronWolf vs Barracuda Pro
None of those are regular drives... Hell, WD Gold is marketed for datacenters.

Regular drives or WD Blue are a lot cheaper than WD Red.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01LNJBA50/

>>61395615
looking at the blue specs, most are 5400rpm, so i'd say it's not green that is gone, but blue
"blue" now is what green was before

this reminds me, fuck, that I'm down to 150GB free out of 9TB on my server's storage.

>>61395794
That's what he meant.

>>61390097
"NAS" drives and enterprise drives usually have error correction turned off because it's based on the assumption they're going to be placed in a RAID environment (not RAID 0, actual redundancy) and error correction will only cause the drives to be dropped from the array as unresponsive.

TLER prevents this from happening, but it could be a danger if you run the drive stand-alone as it won't run error correction that a conventional desktop drive will run.

>>61391917
cool blog post

>>61390097
I prefer hardware with a 5 year warranty. Most of the reds only come with 3 years.

>>61396057
You can spend extra on a RED Pro.

>>61396076
WD Red is literally a Green with firmware meant for NAS and less aggressive head parking

>>61396118
It has extra stabilising hardware, especially the PRO models.

It must suck being wrong so often.

>>61396076
Red Pro is kind of niche. Gold sells a lot more units and it's not unusual to find them for slightly less if you're buying bare drives.

>>61396154
WD Red Pro is a Red which is a Green with NAS firmware

>>61396118
Warranty is longer on the Red (3 years instead of 2).

>>61396154
>extra stabilising hardware
Lol what. Duuuude. Citation needed.