Enterprise vs. Standard Hard Drive, is the cost worth it?

[RbSX]

Hey guys,

I'm upgrading my office server to server 2008, and while I'm doing it I think I'm going to change to Raid 5.

Now it's been recommended to me that I switch to enterprise drives, but after doing some research I've found that most people are skeptical about the benefits considering that the cost (atleast around here) is nearly double, if not triple the price of a standard drive.

What are your guys thoughts?

 

[TC91]

Are you using a SAS controller right now?

 

[Elixer]

I would say, whatever drive you decide on, you still need a backup strategy. There really is no way to get around this, if the data is important to you.

I couldn't answer if a enterprise level HD would be worth it to you, it just depends on how you use them. All HDs will fail at one point.

 

[Nothinman]

Hey guys,

I'm upgrading my office server to server 2008, and while I'm doing it I think I'm going to change to Raid 5.

Now it's been recommended to me that I switch to enterprise drives, but after doing some research I've found that most people are skeptical about the benefits considering that the cost (atleast around here) is nearly double, if not triple the price of a standard drive.

What are your guys thoughts?

If it's a whitebox "server" that you built yourself I wouldn't worry about it. If it's an OEM server from HP, IBM, Dell, etc just stick with whatever models they sell. Sure they're probably a bit more expensive but it's well worth it for the warranty.

 

[RbSX]

Are you using a SAS controller right now?

Negative, there are currently (2) 500gb drives in there running server 2003, the server has sat unused for a year.

It makes sense for us to run a raid 5 and I thought that I would do it since we have to wipe the entire machine anyways to put Server 2008 on it.

 

[RbSX]

If it's a whitebox "server" that you built yourself I wouldn't worry about it. If it's an OEM server from HP, IBM, Dell, etc just stick with whatever models they sell. Sure they're probably a bit more expensive but it's well worth it for the warranty.

The server is already built, we've had it for a year, it's sat idle on a shelf.

 

[RbSX]

I would say, whatever drive you decide on, you still need a backup strategy. There really is no way to get around this, if the data is important to you.

I couldn't answer if a enterprise level HD would be worth it to you, it just depends on how you use them. All HDs will fail at one point.

Either way we're going raid 5, I was just wondering if Enterprise drives are that much more reliable.

 

[theevilsharpie]

By enterprise drives, are you referring to the "enterprise" line of SATA disks from Seagate, Western Digital, and others, or are you referring to higher-speed SAS disks?

 

[Nothinman]

The server is already built, we've had it for a year, it's sat idle on a shelf.

Which implies that it's a custom "whitebox" server, so there's no real reason to worry about enterprise vs consumer drives if you're not paying for a "real" server from HP, IBM, Dell, etc.

 

[MalVeauX]

Hey guys,

I'm upgrading my office server to server 2008, and while I'm doing it I think I'm going to change to Raid 5.

Now it's been recommended to me that I switch to enterprise drives, but after doing some research I've found that most people are skeptical about the benefits considering that the cost (atleast around here) is nearly double, if not triple the price of a standard drive.

What are your guys thoughts?

Heya,

You're largely paying for the warranty. Yes, there are some physical differences. But not worth the price.

I'd rather have two inexpensive drives, mirrored, for each enterprise drive that is not mirrored. Real redundancy versus assumed longer operating life.

Very best,

 

[Emulex]

hp 4gb,9gb, and some 18gb quantum scsi drives - still rocking out
hp 72gb scsi ultra320 "G4" series (5+ years old) - still rocking out
hp sas 2.5" 10K drives - rocking out
hp sas 3.5" 15K drives - rocking out
hp sata 500gb 3.5" drives - rocking out
knock on wood.

let's check out failures:
2.5" sata 80gb drives raid-1 (failed after 3 days) - dell provided server and drives
3.5" 750gb seagate sata in raid-1 - failed twice - now using as jbod junk storage
seagate 250gb 7200.9 in software raid-1 - failed once - junked for jbod

to be fair the last 2 were not TLER/(or whatever) raid edition drives. the 2.5" were.

no idea how old those 4gb drives are maybe 10 years old?

not having to deal with a failed drive/array - priceless

 

[ChaiBabbaChai]

To answer your question, I am 90% sure the Enterprise models (such as the Hitachi E7K vs. 7K) drives are burned in longer / run through more strenuous testing before being shipped out. And also the firmware might be slightly different.

 

[Blain]

The question of "WORTH" is one of those things in the PC world that vary with each person according to their budget, need and predilection.
I wish the worlds "worth", "better" and "future proof" could be BANNED from thread titles. They're simply too subjective to be effective.


Scott Mueller...
"Bottom line: Enterprise class drives are more reliable, especially in multi-drive installations or RAID arrays. Whether the additional reliability is worth the extra cost is up to you."

I trust what he says on the matter. 🙂

 

[pjkenned]

Do you have a SAS capable controller? Raid 5 or 6 capable? Personally, I would suggest running a 4 drive raid 6. You'll have way more capacity than you have now, and half of the drives can fail (versus raid 1 for 4 drives it is the same capacity hit, but with the advantage of being able to lose any two drives.) If you don't know you need real enterprise SAS drives, then you probably don't. Save money, buy lots of consumer SATA for backup/ redundancy. They are significantly cheaper and give more capcity.

 

[exar333]

If your data is important, get the Enterprise drives. Save a few hundred, and you might regret it later. It's the same as deciding between a Xeon/Opteron vs. Core/Phenom for an enterprise application. They are more expensive, but they come with more reliability and generally better support.

 

[RebateMonger]

I'm curious why you decided to move to RAID 5 from whatever you had before. If you are concerned about disk reliability, RAID 5 is more likely to fail or cause problems due to disk issues than any other redundant array. If you want redundancy, use RAID 1. If you want redundancy with extra speed, use RAID 10.

Meanwhile, you didn't say how large of arrays you need. WD RE3 320 GB SATA disks are only like $80 each. Not much different from the consumer versions and it certainly doesn't hurt to have the RAID-aware firmware and the vibration sensors. None of the SATA "Enterprise" drives are that much pricier than their "consumer" equivalents. At least not enough to be significant in a business environment. One resync or any other RAID issue will cost you more than the extra investment for the "Enterprise" disks.

 

[Nothinman]

If your data is important, get the Enterprise drives.

Actually, if it's important you'll have a good backup plan and test restores often regardless of the amount of money you spend on drives.

 

[RebateMonger]

Actually, if it's important you'll have a good backup plan and test restores often regardless of the amount of money you spend on drives.

I always like to think that goes without saying....but my experience says it doesn't. :-(

 

[pjkenned]

I always like to think that goes without saying....but my experience says it doesn't. :-(

You should see me right now... I'm moving the WHS to a new chassis/platform so I can use 30+ drives and a Core i7. Been testing WHS under Hyper-V (since I figure I'll have the cores/ ram to do so with WHS being only a 32-bit 4GB max OS). Literally, I have the current WHS data on two raid 6 arrays (each with dedicated hot spares and on different controllers) and a raid 5 array... and I'm still nervous about the whole migration thing.

 

[Nothinman]

I always like to think that goes without saying....but my experience says it doesn't. :-(

Exactly. And even when a place does have a backup solution in place it's not usually watched close enough and restores aren't tested regularly so when you go to restore something it's a huge PITA or even impossible.

 

[exar333]

Exactly. And even when a place does have a backup solution in place it's not usually watched close enough and restores aren't tested regularly so when you go to restore something it's a huge PITA or even impossible.

I definitely agree with this statement, but avoiding having to utilize backup at all is the ideal solution.

So you have a great data backup, great! But even a good data backup system can take time to get back up and running. The value of the enterprise drives is to have the most reliable drives running your systems to reduce the chance of catostrophic failure. The backup would still be there, but hopefully would not be needed.

Often times, however, many people find out they need a backup AFTER something happens. It is then too late...

 

[RebateMonger]

The value of the enterprise drives is to have the most reliable drives running your systems to reduce the chance of catostrophic failure. The backup would still be there, but hopefully would not be needed.

I have no problem with that statement, but enterprise drives fail, too. And storage problems can be caused by problems not even related to direct disk failure.

I've seen several cases where the hot-swap carriers apparently lost contact. Others where SATA connectors were lose. And cases where the array got corrupted because of a power glitch. I've seen one or two apparent multiple disk failures from power glitches that somehow got through. Enterprise or not, those disks are going to go down from these causes.

 

[Nothinman]

I have no problem with that statement, but enterprise drives fail, too. And storage problems can be caused by problems not even related to direct disk failure.

I've seen several cases where the hot-swap carriers apparently lost contact. Others where SATA connectors were lose. And cases where the array got corrupted because of a power glitch. I've seen one or two apparent multiple disk failures from power glitches that somehow got through. Enterprise or not, those disks are going to go down from these causes.

Yea and it's not all hardware related, one bug in the wrong part of a driver and you can get a completely unrecoverable filesystem. Or even worse, silent corruption of data that you won't notice until you need those files days or weeks later.

 

[C1]

Ran across an article assessing enterprise vs home/desktop HDD versions. It depends on what duty cycle you plan to run the drive. For 24/7 servers the enterprise drives are preferred. Besides longer warranty, they are specified at a lower error rate (usually an order of magnitude lower). (There are also other differences such as wider environmental operating range, less vibration, tighter tolerances, etc.) Otherwise, a home/desktop version is fine.