- Jan 28, 2021
- 162
- 2
- 1,595
I need to expand my backup / archive capabilities. Among other measures, I keep offline two archive drives:
● HDD 3.5" Western Digital Ultrastar DC HC550 16TB SATA III 7200 RPM 512 MB cache [0F38460 / WUH721816ALE6L0]
● HDD 3.5" Western Digital Ultrastar DC HC550 18TB SATA III 7200 RPM 512 MB cache [0F38459 / WUH721818ALE6L4]
Lets assume that instead of 20 or 22 TB SATA from that line, I would buy one of these:
● HDD 3.5" Western Digital Ultrastar DC HC570 22TB SAS-3 7200 RPM 512 MB cache [WUH722222AL5201]
● HDD 3.5" Western Digital Ultrastar DC HC570 22TB SAS-3 7200 RPM 512 MB cache [WUH722222AL5204]
[I do not know what is the difference between these two models]
Would I then [in theory / perfect conditions and with the same data on them] increase the speed with which defragmentation is done by 100%? Would that also apply to reading and re-writing of every byte for the purpose of data fade prevention [done with e.g. freeware DiskFresh]? Or would the increase by around [I am guessing] 50%?
I am asking this because:
1] SAS drives are more expensive than SATA ones
2] I would need to buy a PCI-e controller, which seems to costs minimum 1/6 if not 1/3 the cost of the drive alone; and either two of them or a one but with 2 slots [for a ready-to-use fail-safe measures and for future proofing]
3] I would need to buy a cable and a spare one
4] I already have some unmistakable and long lasting issues with achieving speeds of my M.2 SSDs connected via PCI-e [https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/too-slow-ssd-nvme-sata-disks.3691169/] - thus I fear that on this count alone I might end up with my SAS HDD working just a little above speeds of SATA III [thus allowing me, hopefully, to experience higher speeds only after buying a new motherboard]
5] The anti data rot alone just for the the 16TB drive [long story short] took me well over a week to finish, which also greatly disrupted my workflow
And so: I would accept spending ~30% more for a SAS setup in order to gain ~80% more speed for those two tasks [even if I would get to them only after 2-3 years wafer buying a new motherboard] - but I would not accept spending that much more to gain only ~25% [and getting a burden of two different type of HDD connections]
[I connect those archive drives only few times a year to add new backups to them and sometimes also to remove some older ones; and I predict to keep this new 22TB drive for- at least the next 12 years, as my previous biggest offline archive drive I used for 8 years, while previous for 6, getting rid of it only because it was two small]
● HDD 3.5" Western Digital Ultrastar DC HC550 16TB SATA III 7200 RPM 512 MB cache [0F38460 / WUH721816ALE6L0]
● HDD 3.5" Western Digital Ultrastar DC HC550 18TB SATA III 7200 RPM 512 MB cache [0F38459 / WUH721818ALE6L4]
Lets assume that instead of 20 or 22 TB SATA from that line, I would buy one of these:
● HDD 3.5" Western Digital Ultrastar DC HC570 22TB SAS-3 7200 RPM 512 MB cache [WUH722222AL5201]
● HDD 3.5" Western Digital Ultrastar DC HC570 22TB SAS-3 7200 RPM 512 MB cache [WUH722222AL5204]
[I do not know what is the difference between these two models]
Would I then [in theory / perfect conditions and with the same data on them] increase the speed with which defragmentation is done by 100%? Would that also apply to reading and re-writing of every byte for the purpose of data fade prevention [done with e.g. freeware DiskFresh]? Or would the increase by around [I am guessing] 50%?
I am asking this because:
1] SAS drives are more expensive than SATA ones
2] I would need to buy a PCI-e controller, which seems to costs minimum 1/6 if not 1/3 the cost of the drive alone; and either two of them or a one but with 2 slots [for a ready-to-use fail-safe measures and for future proofing]
3] I would need to buy a cable and a spare one
4] I already have some unmistakable and long lasting issues with achieving speeds of my M.2 SSDs connected via PCI-e [https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/too-slow-ssd-nvme-sata-disks.3691169/] - thus I fear that on this count alone I might end up with my SAS HDD working just a little above speeds of SATA III [thus allowing me, hopefully, to experience higher speeds only after buying a new motherboard]
5] The anti data rot alone just for the the 16TB drive [long story short] took me well over a week to finish, which also greatly disrupted my workflow
And so: I would accept spending ~30% more for a SAS setup in order to gain ~80% more speed for those two tasks [even if I would get to them only after 2-3 years wafer buying a new motherboard] - but I would not accept spending that much more to gain only ~25% [and getting a burden of two different type of HDD connections]
[I connect those archive drives only few times a year to add new backups to them and sometimes also to remove some older ones; and I predict to keep this new 22TB drive for- at least the next 12 years, as my previous biggest offline archive drive I used for 8 years, while previous for 6, getting rid of it only because it was two small]
Last edited:
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram