CPU: Intel Xeon E-2288G (Coffee Lake-R) 3.7 GHz (w/iGPU transcoding after TrueNAS 12.0-RELEASE upgrade) A 6 Gb/s SATA drive attached to an HP 420i controller will operate at 3Gb/s if the controller is dual-ported, but the drive is single-ported. A dual-port 6 Gb/s SAS drive on the same controller will run at 6 Gb/s.

The OLTP charts are nearly an identical image of the database test with the Exos standing strong in this heavy randomized workload. A hub for all Seagate Drive related queries, this is a community run sub-reddit. Not an official sub-reddit. BigPool: 8 * Seagate Exos 12TB HDD in 4 * mirrored pairs + 2 18TB Toshiba MG08 + Optane 900P as SLOG + Mirrored Special (800GB Intel DC S3610) Before we images of Austin Power's laser sharks dancing in our heads, we get to talk about the current product lines that just expanded capacities to 16TB. Seagate's three NAS-optimized series, IronWolf, IronWolf Pro, and Exos X now ship in the new capacity. Other than the label, the three series look identical and often times pricing is similar. Today we will look at what differentiates the three and then see each in action over in the native environment, over a network. Lyve: Periferie-naar-cloudplatform voor massaopslag Lyve Cloud: Voordelige objectopslag, ontworpen voor de multicloudSo I'm looking at getting a few of these for my my NAS but I'm having trouble finding any data on noise levels. I'm currently running mostly 8TB WD Reds which according to their data sheet run 27 dBA idle and 29 dBA seek (average). In the NAS, we use eight drives from each series in a RAID 6 array without a SSD cache. The QSAN XN8012R uses the ZFS file system and a 10-gigabit Ethernet connection to the network. My understanding is that the multiple lanes/channels are only part of the picture. With just a few drives, it probably isn't going to matter. As Robert said, you have to take into account both the controller and the drives. The max throughput for most SAS controllers these days is 12Gbps vs 6Gbps for SATA, which is the total amount of data that can be read/written in any given by the controller, regardless of how many drives you have connected. If you start to connect more drives, you'll obviously hit this limit at some point. Considering these are enterprise drives I'm thinking they could run a fair bit louder but I'm hoping for some actual data. In reply to Prasanga : Noise levels of X18 and X16 are same as per the manual. They both have 3.2 to 3.4 bels during performance seek and 2.8 to 3.0 bels during ideal

ST16000NM000J is based on the X18 platform, which has 18TB as the highest capacity. It also has 9 disks with 17 heads, each disk about 2.0TB. So this is the same as an 18TB drive, just with 1 headless. I haven't seen that either. Other than one drive I had replaced under warranty, the rest of the drives in my array have Load_Cycle_Count values around 1300 with over 21000 power-on hours.

https://www.seagate.com/files/www-content/datasheets/pdfs/exos-x18-channel-DS2045-2-2010US-en_US.pdf SATA has faster write, SAS has faster continuous read and write, and SAS is (negligibly, these days) more reliable. SAS is generally more expensive. HP has a good article on this. Seagate has recently refreshed the IronWolf and IronWolf Pro NAS product lines with new 16TB flagship drives. Launched at the same time was the new 16TB flagship drive for the enterprise range, the Exos X16. At launch, the Exos X16 drive is the world’s highest capacity 3.5-inch 7,200 RPM drive for the enterprise sector that is readily available. The two IronWolf Series drives outperform the Exos X slightly in the sequential read test, but there are plenty of outliers with all three series. There are many data points to go over in the specifications that explain why Seagate offers three NAS-optimized models. We will be starting with the IronWolf and IronWolf Pro from the Guardian Series of consumer and prosumer products.

The Exos X doubles the IOPS in every OIO compared to the two IronWolf series. This doesn't come as a surprise since this is the series' home turf. Seagate has two standard drives that are 16Tb. One is X16 series, while the other is X18. The data sheet on the X18 says it is CMR, but the data sheet for the X16 does not. As with most of the Exos product range, the X16 is available with either 6Gb/s SATA or 12Gb/s SAS interfaces. There are two SATA models, the standard model (the drive we are reviewing here) which is the ST16000NM001G – and then there is a SED (Self-Encrypting Drive) version, the ST16000NM003G. Even though we don't have flash sitting in front of the arrays today, we still show the preconditioning and steady-state charts that will allow you to compare these three products to other products and array types later. lapetinap​ That is why I am asking this question. There is nothing I can find that states SATA or SAS for these two drives has any reliability or speed advantage over the other.I'm starting to see the differences now! Thanks for the help. It looks like my controller, H740P Opens a new window will always communicate via 2x SAS connectors. The spec sheet says each port has a connection of "Up to 12Gbp/s per port", but I can see on a lesser RAID card how difference in the SATA vs SAS drives would make a bigger issue. The 1TB to 4TB IronWolf models use 5,900-RPM platter rotation, but the 6TB and larger capacities shifted to 7,200 RPMs just like all capacities of the IronWolf Pros series. The IronWolf base model competes head to head with Western Digital's Red (base series) that still uses the 5,900-RPM spindle speed. The IronWolf Pro is the direct competitor to the Red Pro series with 7,200-RPM speed. The advantage becomes very clear in the user experience and performance. Partitioning the boot drive: https://www.truenas.com/community/resources/i-have-to-waste-an-entire-drive-just-for-booting.187/ ScratchSSD 1 * High Endurance SSD for temp files for some applications. No write amplification and I don't care about the data

ST16000NM001G is on the X16 platform (the highest capacity on X16). It has 9 disks with 18 heads, each disk about 1.8TB. The IronWolf Pro has the same capacity advantages over the Red Pro, and the dollars per gigabyte value is favorable, as well. The series works better in large disk deployments that exceed the recommended drive count of the base IronWolf. Seagate recently increased the maximum recommended number of drives to twenty-four from sixteen and that increases the series' usefulness for cold storage. Both have the same workload (550TB per year), reliability (2.5 million hours MTBF), warranty (5 years limited), and of course the same capacity. Virtualization: https://www.truenas.com/community/t...ide-to-not-completely-losing-your-data.12714/ Power supplies: https://www.truenas.com/community/resources/proper-power-supply-sizing-guidance.39/

10 comments

Big Green Man​ Is the faster SAS continuous write because it has more data channels it can use? Both drives state they max out at 261 MB/s, when SATA is 6Gb's or 750 MB/s. With that in mind, how can SAS be any faster for continuous writes, if I'm still not filling up SATA's bandwidth (I'm not even half way)? I would be using (at least some of these) for video surveillance so continuous writes is actually quite important for me. The mixed workload and 70% read charts show us more of the performance inconsistency at very high queue depths. These are worse case numbers for HDDs since the heavy workloads compounds latency between each IO. Terminology and Abbreviations Primer: https://www.truenas.com/community/threads/terminology-and-abbreviations-primer.28174/