On 12 October 2013 14:16, mick mbm@rlogin.net wrote:
All the sites I have read as a result of this discussion here suggest that whilst 300,000 load cycles is probably a reasonable lifetime max (so my 6 month old server is fsckd) up to a million may be possible.
My interpretation of the 300,000 lifetime max was that this was an "expected" maximum, ie it would be predicted that a disk would reach this level in normal usage over its lifetime. In designing a disk to spin down more often it should be expected to have a higher load cycle count in normal use than a "normal" disk. The maximum design lifetime seems to be 1,000,000, so anything up to that shouldn't really give any cause for concern (in my reading of this), and I will repeat that I have a RAID5 array running on disks at 1,800,000 cycles that hasn't shown any sign of problems (although I will be replacing those disks as a caution now that I've become aware of it).
So I wouldn't worry too much about your disks, but at the same time I won't personally take any responsibility for your data :-)
If I had a RAID1 array, as you do, I would replace one of the disks, and in future I shall return to my principle of using disks from different manufacturers in my RAID1 arrays.
So, given that I should probably change my shiny new disks PDQ, I'll ask the same question Mark did - what can people recommend for a server which is primarily a NAS backup (it is also my DNS server and a DLNA server for my MP3 and MP4 files)?
I'm also still very much looking for recommendations here though. I am seriously considering the "better the devil you know" route and getting WD drives and tuning them accordingly, for fear of buying a different brand which has a similar quirk that I know nothing about. The fact that my disks currently seem fine at 1,800,000 load cycles gives me some confidence that the drives are themselves well made.