WD GPs are dying? Really?

[nutball]

The picoPSU states max and peak load currents, and says that the (higher) peak loads shouldn't exceed 60 seconds. So this may give an idea how long such conditions can be tolerated. It's more than mere milliseconds by the sounds of it.

[PartEleven]

That's good to hear, but my question was not concern for my system, but more in general. Some people go to great lengths to make sure that their peak load at spin up doesn't exceed their rated wattage. If what you say is true, then perhaps this isn't such a critical concern after all. If most hard drives only have that kind of power spike in the ms range and most PSUs can handle extreme loads at ~1 s intervals, then it would be much more important to focus on operating power load.

[swivelguy2]

If there's a spike in power consumption from HDD spin-up, it generally happens at a time when the CPU and especially the GPU are under low load, and therefore drawing far from their maximum power. Unless you have oodles of drives, if your PSU can handle your CPU and GPU both at full load, it should have no trouble spinning up a few drives during system boot.

[dhanson865]

You might also find this thread interesting. There is a graph in thread of spinup power over time, some links to PDFs with more graphs for other drives, and some text values for various drives. It's not a complete picture but it might hint at what is happening.

viewtopic.php?p=411314&highlight=&sid=2 ... cbabe2080d

[ctag]

I wasn't sure whether I should start a new thread. There's been a lot of talk about abnormally high park counts on Linux machines because of relatively frequent disk access by the kernel. I'm wondering if that would occur if the drives were mounted for data storage only.

Basically, I envision a setup where I have one drive for my Linux OS and a pair of 1 TB WD Green drives in software RAID for my home directory (or mount it as a completely separate partition for backup only). In that case, will there still be constant disk access on the RAID drives? Would it be better if I went with another brand?

[dhanson865]

In that case, will there still be constant disk access on the RAID drives? Would it be better if I went with another brand?

Right now, price/performance wise the WD5000AADS loses out to the Samsung HD502HI. They are basically the same price but the Samsung is single platter and beats the WD500 and WD640 green drives for performance.

I'm not that worried about the WD issue this thread is about but even if that issue never existed you are likely to get more recommendations for the Samsung EcoGreen F2 series right now just because it's newer/better.

Give it a few months and WD might retake the lead but for now I'd either go Samsung EcoGree F2 or WD Blue/Black depending on my preference for power/noise vs lower access times.

[_MarcoM_]

WD5000AADS is single platter, too.

[qviri]

I wasn't sure whether I should start a new thread. There's been a lot of talk about abnormally high park counts on Linux machines because of relatively frequent disk access by the kernel. I'm wondering if that would occur if the drives were mounted for data storage only.

Basically, I envision a setup where I have one drive for my Linux OS and a pair of 1 TB WD Green drives in software RAID for my home directory (or mount it as a completely separate partition for backup only). Would it be better if I went with another brand?

I'd like to re-raise this question after the recent review of the WD15EADS and given Samsungs' poor retail availability in Canada.

In my case I wouldn't even be using the drive for home, just mounted somewhere on the filesystem and shared via samba.

If I read the thread correctly, it seems to be just a matter of disabling/nerfing smartmon?