From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jul 21 14:56:19 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF2C44E3
 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:56:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from oneyou.mcmli.com (oneyou.mcmli.com [IPv6:2001:470:1d:8da::100])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (Client CN "oneyou.mcmli.com",
 Issuer "COMODO RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (verified OK))
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B3752EE7
 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:56:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from sentry.24cl.com (unknown
 [IPv6:2001:558:6017:a2:a860:3073:4c46:6ac9])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (Client CN "sentry.24cl.com",
 Issuer "Mike's Certificate Authority" (verified OK))
 by oneyou.mcmli.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3hH5c03j3Fz1DRW
 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:56:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from BigBloat (bigbloat.24cl.home [10.20.1.4])
 by sentry.24cl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3hH5bx2V32z1Bl7
 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:56:13 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <201407211056120131.00800484@smtp.24cl.home>
In-Reply-To: <CAPYfQ9z+4hA1khcaPKs=gG4BpvgZtv=YLocK-XQ8m6s=539UVA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPYfQ9z+4hA1khcaPKs=gG4BpvgZtv=YLocK-XQ8m6s=539UVA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Courier 3.50.00.09.1098 (http://www.rosecitysoftware.com) (P)
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:56:12 -0400
From: "Mike." <the.lists@mgm51.com>
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: FreeBSD NAS hardware suggestions
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-questions>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:56:19 -0000

On 7/21/2014 at 9:35 AM cruxpot wrote:

|Hi there,
|
|[snip]
|
|I am looking at Seagate's NAS line of drives since they seem to have
|less DOA's in reviews than the WD red drives. Are these good for
ZFS?
|
|[snip]
 =============

Another data point for you:
http://techreport.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=94502


Depending upon where you looked, I wrote one of those early failure
reviews for the WD Red drives, yet I continue to buy them in my ZFS
array.  Why?, you might ask.

The easiest time to replace a failed drive is right at the beginning
when it is new.  Both amazon and newegg have a very efficient
return/replace process for early failures.

In my experience, once you get past the early failures, the WD Red
drives are solid, the Seagates less so.  So I run them for a week
before I put them in the array.   That seems to catch the early
failures.


I trade off early failures when it is far easier for me to deal with
them vs. later life failures that often (and usually) occur when you
least expect them and at inconvenient times.


You might make a different trade-off.