New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
TOSHIBA MK1002TSKB 3.5-inch SATA Enterprise HDD ?
Anyone tried these? A local supplier has them, haven't seen them before. And since the supply of seagate Constellation drives seems to have dried i am considering getting some of these toshiba drives. Looking for feedback from people who have used these before.
Comments
I have experience with the MK1001TRKB drives and quite like them.
I wouldn't imagine they're too terrible.
Toshiba is not bad in general.
Thanks! For some reason the local suppliers usually don't sell toshiba at all, so i have zero experience with toshiba HDDs. I think i will get some and see how they are.
I have bought dozens of MK1001TRKB and they work just fine, I'd imagine the model you listed is the same drive except the interface components.
@miTgiB yes, MK1001TRKB is listed at http://storage.toshiba.com as SAS 6Gbps while the MK1002TSKB is Sata 3Gbps, otherwise the rest is the same.
http://storage.toshiba.com/storagesolutions/enterprise/mk2001trkb-2tskb#
hmm, what is your use and how much is the local vendor asking? I paid $118 in over case qty a month ago, but if you are not going to use a raid card, a SAS HBA is quite an upcharge.
1TB TOSHIBA RAID MK1002TSKB 108.00 USD
2TB TOSHIBA RAID MK2002TSKB 206.00 USD
They don't sell the SAS version so i don't have to worry about it
I read that the Toshiba Enterprise SATA drives have issues in Linux with constant parking/unparking, which kept me away. I don't know if that is still accurate or not.
Is that from the single review on Newegg? I did some research on the subject when I was looking at drives; I couldn't find another instance of the issue. FWIW.
Is this drive any good? I've been looking for recommeded 1/1.5tb 6gbps sata3 drives and 4port raid card?
I'm using the 1TBs in my nodes, very nice performance. Much more reasonable pricing than the WD Blacks and yet rated for 24/7 operation, can't really complain. The drives are on most RAID card compatibility lists too I recall.
Wouldn't be using the WD Blacks in RAID anyway. Need either the WD RE drives or similar. The other ones can't recover from a RAID failure.
The drives in the RAID10 arrays on our nodes all seem to be WD Black drives.... should I be concerned?
Non-recoverable read errors per bits read is what to watch out for. The blacks are <1 in 10^14. Think the RE's are 10^16.
It depends on the total RAID size. It's more of an issue on RAID6. The idea is that there are too many bits and if a failure occurs and a rebuild triggers, there will be enough error bits that fail to a point the RAID can't be recovered.
@concerto49 Sorry, didn't quite understand that.
So your basically saying that RE drives have less non-recoverable read errors?
From what I can gather, it's the error correction/reporting being different on Consumer grade drives when compared to enterprise drives, and that the error handling on consumer grade drives don't play nice with RAID controllers/arrays.
Before the Toshibas came around in Singapore, WD Blacks were common for RAID even though it doesn't support TLER. WD REs are troublesome to get in SG, need custom order since nobody stocks it. Easier to waltz into a shop and pick up WD Blacks. WD Blacks work nice with mdraid though.
That's correct. And when your data size is too large (due to large RAID errors), you'll have so many non-recoverable errors that recovering a RAID just won't work.
I suspect it is just different firmware on the HDD, but still. As I said it's mainly a problem on RAID5/6 but depends on the size of your RAID.
No, I had read it somewhere else (I believe it was a forum of some type, but I failed to bookmark it), but I can't remember where now.