Poofyhairguy's HTPC Recommendation Thread - Printable Version
+- XBMC Community Forum (http://forum.xbmc.org)
+-- Forum: Off-Topic (/forumdisplay.php?fid=34)
+--- Forum: Hardware for XBMC (/forumdisplay.php?fid=112)
+--- Thread: Poofyhairguy's HTPC Recommendation Thread (/showthread.php?tid=94268)
- Dumb ? - 2011-02-19 04:45
Great thread Poofy. Your recommendations should be placed in the Wiki. This definitely made me sit down and figure out how I want to map out my home theatre setup throughout the house. I can see myself using a couple of these configurations
- maddog808 - 2011-02-19 05:34
EarnheadJ Wrote:Poofyhairguy, welcome back. Always enjoy reading you're posts.
- maxinc - 2011-02-19 09:06
poofyhairguy Wrote:I do recommend a 7200RPM drive for parity, as it DOES increase the speed of writes.
Given the parity write mechanism of unRAID, the actual speed during writes is dictated by the slowest drive involved.
During the write operation, both parity and data drive need to perform a read before the write, for every single block of data. Since the platter needs to do a full revolution before the write operation, the faster disk will have to wait for the slower one to finish it's write before moving on to the next block.
Using a faster parity drive will result in faster write speed as long as the data drive is also fast. If you have a 7200rpm parity + 5400rpm data drive, the parity drive, although faster, will have to wait for the 5400rpm drive to complete each read-write cycle so the resulting write speed is the same as that of a 5400rpm parity drive.
If, however you have other 7200rpm drives in the tower, a faster parity would help slightly with writes to those particular drives.
If you use a cache drive, you have to know that data on that drive is not protected by parity until the cache transfer scripts kicks in and moves it to the protected array. This usually happens at night (but can be set to whichever time suits you best). A faster parity here would not make any difference in terms of perceived write speeds which is actually the speed of the cache drive itself.
- IAmNotAUser - 2011-02-23 13:40
Payday is getting near and that means my UnRaid build will soon be happening too.
I've spent some time researching and stumbled across the Intellipark issue parking the heads every 8 seconds with WD Green drives. I can't find any proof that they are or aren't still doing this in the latest 2TB drives, what's your experience with it? Noticable? Did you disable it?
I think I'm going to post a similar question in the UnRaid forums too, but I'd like to your input on it.
- Superorb - 2011-02-23 16:58
IAmNotAUser Wrote:Payday is getting near and that means my UnRaid build will soon be happening too.You can download and run an application that will disable or change the timeout till parking the heads. I'd go for an EARS as they're cheaper than the EADS drives and both work fine in unRAID. Just make sure you get the 4.7 version with the advanced format.
- IAmNotAUser - 2011-02-23 17:07
I understand I can get a program to do it, my question was more whether it is still required or indeed, recommended by people who have real experience using the drives.
- Superorb - 2011-02-23 17:13
IAmNotAUser Wrote:I understand I can get a program to do it, my question was more whether it is still required or indeed, recommended by people who have real experience using the drives.Well, think of it this way. The heads park every 8 seconds of inactivity. People have been reporting tens of thousands of head parks compared to double digit head parks for other drives. Personally, I don't want that much wear and tear on my drives if it is not needed. And, it's obviously not needed if all the other drives in the world don't follow this trend.
FWIW, almost everyone on the unRAID forums have disabled or set the timeout to a much higher number.
- IAmNotAUser - 2011-02-23 17:31
So it is still required to do it then? It's just that none of these sites says anything about the IntelliPark feature still in use on the drives, whilst listing other features.
- Superorb - 2011-02-23 17:33
IAmNotAUser Wrote:So it is still required to do it then? It's just that none of these sites says anything about the IntelliPark feature still in use on the drives, whilst listing other features.It's not required, but it's something I would do if it were my drive. If you trust the website than order one. Either way, I wouldn't let something like drive parking stop me from buying one since there's an easy fix. And if you're running it on the 4.7 version, no jumper is required.
- IAmNotAUser - 2011-02-23 17:36
Alright, thanks. That's allayed another of my fears and added to the to-do list for the new build
I suppose it can't hurt to run the program and deactivated a feature if it's not in place, and if it is then it's only doing good.