this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2024
356 points (99.7% liked)

Technology

59377 readers
4005 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DaPorkchop_@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

My 16TB ultrastars get upwards of 180MB/s sustained read and write, these will presumably be faster than that as the density is higher.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm guessing that only works if the file is smaller than the RAM cache of the drives. Transfer a file that's bigger than that, and it will go fast at first, but then fill the cache and the rate starts to drop closer to 100 MB/s.

My data hoarder drives are a pair of WD ultrastar 18TB SAS drives on RAID1, and that's how they tend to behave.

[–] DaPorkchop_@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

This is for very long sustained writes, like 40TiB at a time. I can't say I've ever noticed any slowdown, but I'll keep a closer eye on it next time I do another huge copy. I've also never seen any kind of noticeable slowdown on my 4 8TB SATA WD golds, although they only get to about 150MB/s each.

EDIT: The effect would be obvious pretty fast at even moderate write speeds, I've never seen a drive with more than a GB of cache. My 16TB drives have 256MB, and the 8TB drives only 64MB of cache.