Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: 2.5 vs 3.5 inch spinny disks reliability

  1. #1
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,335
    Thanks
    714
    Thanked
    1,406 times in 1,188 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 1TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 33 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    2.5 vs 3.5 inch spinny disks reliability

    Just looking at a new hard drive for use in the home server, and was wondering if anyone knew what the reliability is like on 2.5in drives?

    I don't need that much capacity so I could use either size, there is room in the case for 3.5in drives but the world seems to be heading in the 2.5in direction.

  2. #2
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    70
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post
    • Oswald's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS M4A77TD PRO
      • CPU:
      • AMD PHENOM II X4 955 @3.6
      • Memory:
      • 8GB KINGSTON 1600
      • Storage:
      • OCZ AGILITY & WD CAVIAR BLUE
      • Graphics card(s):
      • SAPPHIRE 7870 OC
      • PSU:
      • ANTEC EARTHWATTS 500
      • Case:
      • ANTEC SONATA III
      • Operating System:
      • WIN 7 ULTIMATE 64BIT
      • Monitor(s):
      • PHILLIPS 37" LCD
      • Internet:
      • TELENET CABLE

    Re: 2.5 vs 3.5 inch spinny disks reliability

    Quote Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix View Post
    Just looking at a new hard drive for use in the home server, and was wondering if anyone knew what the reliability is like on 2.5in drives?

    I don't need that much capacity so I could use either size, there is room in the case for 3.5in drives but the world seems to be heading in the 2.5in direction.
    3.5" is cheaper per GB, so I don't see why you would want to go for a 2.5" if you have room for a 3.5".

  3. #3
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,335
    Thanks
    714
    Thanked
    1,406 times in 1,188 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 1TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 33 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    Re: 2.5 vs 3.5 inch spinny disks reliability

    Reliability, if they really are better. If nothing else, the airflow around a smaller drive would be better.

    5.25" drives used to be cheaper per GB than 3.5" drives but they still died out. In a few years I expect 3.5" drives will be only for high capacity drives and mainstream will be 2.5"

    Also, I can get a 4 drive raid array in the space of 1 DVD bay:

    http://www.scan.co.uk/products/icy-d...lane-raid-cage

    Am edging towards a pair of WD 3.5" red drives mirrored, but still unsure atm.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    4,826
    Thanks
    161
    Thanked
    358 times in 288 posts
    • badass's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS P8Z77-m pro
      • CPU:
      • Core i5 3570K
      • Memory:
      • 32GB
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 850 EVO, 2TB WD Green
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Radeon RX 580
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX520W
      • Case:
      • Silverstone SG02-F
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 X64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Del U2311, LG226WTQ
      • Internet:
      • 80/20 FTTC

    Re: 2.5 vs 3.5 inch spinny disks reliability

    Quote Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix View Post
    Reliability, if they really are better. If nothing else, the airflow around a smaller drive would be better.

    5.25" drives used to be cheaper per GB than 3.5" drives but they still died out. In a few years I expect 3.5" drives will be only for high capacity drives and mainstream will be 2.5"

    Also, I can get a 4 drive raid array in the space of 1 DVD bay:

    http://www.scan.co.uk/products/icy-d...lane-raid-cage

    Am edging towards a pair of WD 3.5" red drives mirrored, but still unsure atm.
    Or indeed 6 drives.........
    http://www.scan.co.uk/products/icy-d...lane-raid-cage

    Reliability wise, I haven't a clue though.
    "In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penises, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship."

  5. #5
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,335
    Thanks
    714
    Thanked
    1,406 times in 1,188 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 1TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 33 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    Re: 2.5 vs 3.5 inch spinny disks reliability

    Blimey, I hadn't looked that far down the list. I think at six drives I would want to be using enterprise class stuff so they didn't vibrate each other into early failure though and I don't have that much money

    Been having another look at pricing. The cheapest 500GB drive on Ebuyer is 2.5":

    http://www.ebuyer.com/339424-hitachi...-drive-0j11285

    Really hard to get a direct comparison but comparing two Hitachi drives 1TB at 3.5" is £53, at 2.5" £60 so not that much in it:

    http://www.ebuyer.com/177466-hitachi...ds721010cla332
    http://www.ebuyer.com/363299-hitachi...-drive-0j22413

    Now those 2.5" drives are only 5400rpm so will be slower, but then if I cared about performance that much I would probably be getting an SSD.

    2.5" drives at 7200rpm seem to be much lower capacity and about a pound a gig, but 4.2ms seek is rather nice:

    http://www.ebuyer.com/255282-wd-500g...ive-wd5000bpkt

    I think I am just confusing myself with options now

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    4,826
    Thanks
    161
    Thanked
    358 times in 288 posts
    • badass's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS P8Z77-m pro
      • CPU:
      • Core i5 3570K
      • Memory:
      • 32GB
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 850 EVO, 2TB WD Green
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Radeon RX 580
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX520W
      • Case:
      • Silverstone SG02-F
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 X64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Del U2311, LG226WTQ
      • Internet:
      • 80/20 FTTC

    Re: 2.5 vs 3.5 inch spinny disks reliability

    Quote Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix View Post
    Blimey, I hadn't looked that far down the list. I think at six drives I would want to be using enterprise class stuff so they didn't vibrate each other into early failure though and I don't have that much money

    Been having another look at pricing. The cheapest 500GB drive on Ebuyer is 2.5":

    http://www.ebuyer.com/339424-hitachi...-drive-0j11285

    Really hard to get a direct comparison but comparing two Hitachi drives 1TB at 3.5" is £53, at 2.5" £60 so not that much in it:

    http://www.ebuyer.com/177466-hitachi...ds721010cla332
    http://www.ebuyer.com/363299-hitachi...-drive-0j22413

    Now those 2.5" drives are only 5400rpm so will be slower, but then if I cared about performance that much I would probably be getting an SSD.
    Its over 1TB the prices start diverging in favour of 3.5" drives. 2TB 3.5" drives start around £70 whilst the 2.5" drives cost much more.
    2.5" drives at 7200rpm seem to be much lower capacity and about a pound a gig, but 4.2ms seek is rather nice:

    http://www.ebuyer.com/255282-wd-500g...ive-wd5000bpkt

    I think I am just confusing myself with options now
    Indeed. But that's half the fun!
    "In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penises, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship."

  7. #7
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,335
    Thanks
    714
    Thanked
    1,406 times in 1,188 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 1TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 33 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    Re: 2.5 vs 3.5 inch spinny disks reliability

    Quote Originally Posted by badass View Post
    Its over 1TB the prices start diverging in favour of 3.5" drives. 2TB 3.5" drives start around £70 whilst the 2.5" drives cost much more.


    Indeed. But that's half the fun!
    Thankfully I don't need more than 1TB of storage, though some redundancy would be excellent. So:

    2 x 1TB 3.5" drives = £105.60 for 1TB mirrored
    3 x 0.5TB 2.5" drives = £105.96 for 1TB raid 5/raid z.

    though I probably would want one of those natty 2.5" quad bays if I went that route that does bump the price a lot.

    Still confused

  8. #8
    jim
    jim is offline
    HEXUS.clueless jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Location: Location:
    Posts
    11,435
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked
    1,639 times in 1,304 posts
    • jim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Maximus IV Gene-Z
      • CPU:
      • i5 2500K @ 4.5GHz
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Corsair Vengeance LP
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Sandisk SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ASUS GTX 970
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX650
      • Case:
      • Silverstone Fortress FT03
      • Operating System:
      • 8.1 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2716DG
      • Internet:
      • 10 Mbps ADSL

    Re: 2.5 vs 3.5 inch spinny disks reliability

    Given that a lot of servers ship with 2.5" SAS drives, I can't imagine there's a problem.

    Also, any statistics are likely to be skewed by the fact that they're usually used in laptops where temperatures are likely to be much higher - if such statistics even exist.

    I'm currently using a 2.5" disk instead of 3.5" in my main machine, but my experience after 15 months is pretty irrelevant, and even then it's a sample size of one. When I have dealt with large numbers of machines, I can't say I've seen any preference towards 2.5" in terms of failure rates, which is a little surprising given the additional abuse they took.

  9. #9
    Senior Member watercooled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,459
    Thanks
    1,539
    Thanked
    1,024 times in 868 posts

    Re: 2.5 vs 3.5 inch spinny disks reliability

    You mean ~10p/GB, not £1/GB.

    Don't confuse enterprise 2.5" SAS drives with consumer 2.5" drives as they're not really comparable, the former use a different form factor and are designed with low access times and high reliability in mind.

    However, I don't think you'll have any problems using 2.5" drives for network storage, there are also off-the-shelf NAS devices designed specifically for them. 2.5" drives should run more quietly and use less power, but if those aren't important to you, you're probably better off with 3.5" drives for the better cost/GB.

    Something to bear in mind with 2.5" drives, they often use aggressive head parking by default as they're designed for mobile use where they'll be moved around a bit, but the head park count can quickly rise. I've not heard of any drives failing as a direct result of it but I prefer to disable it or set the timeout much higher where possible.

  10. #10
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,335
    Thanks
    714
    Thanked
    1,406 times in 1,188 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 1TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 33 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    Re: 2.5 vs 3.5 inch spinny disks reliability

    Quote Originally Posted by watercooled View Post
    You mean ~10p/GB, not £1/GB.

    Don't confuse enterprise 2.5" SAS drives with consumer 2.5" drives as they're not really comparable, the former use a different form factor and are designed with low access times and high reliability in mind.

    However, I don't think you'll have any problems using 2.5" drives for network storage, there are also off-the-shelf NAS devices designed specifically for them. 2.5" drives should run more quietly and use less power, but if those aren't important to you, you're probably better off with 3.5" drives for the better cost/GB.
    As shown above the price penalty for using 2.5" drives is 36p. As a fraction of ~£105, I think I can wear that

    Three drives, even if those drives are a bit slower, are usually faster than 2 drives.

    If I want to do it properly, I would want to spend more to get the drives in caddies. Looking at the caddies available, they look like they have 40mm fans built in the enclosure so they would require modding to get acceptable noise levels. Time is a bit tight atm else I would quite fancy a bit of metalwork.

    Something to bear in mind with 2.5" drives, they often use aggressive head parking by default as they're designed for mobile use where they'll be moved around a bit, but the head park count can quickly rise. I've not heard of any drives failing as a direct result of it but I prefer to disable it or set the timeout much higher where possible.
    That's an interesting point I hadn't considered, thanks!

  11. #11
    Anthropomorphic Personification shaithis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Last Aerie
    Posts
    10,857
    Thanks
    645
    Thanked
    872 times in 736 posts
    • shaithis's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P8Z77 WS
      • CPU:
      • i7 3770k @ 4.5GHz
      • Memory:
      • 32GB HyperX 1866
      • Storage:
      • Lots!
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire Fury X
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX850
      • Case:
      • Corsair 600T (White)
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2 x Dell 3007
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb Fibre

    Re: 2.5 vs 3.5 inch spinny disks reliability

    Well, raid 3/5/6/50/60 (and their variants) will normally write slower but read faster than raid 1.....So the mirrored pair could be better in a write-heavy scenario.

    The 2.5" drives are hard to compare directly to 3.5" drives for performance. While you lose the super-high density of the outer half of the 3.5" drive, you do gain the short-stroke nature of the 2.5".....how that plays out will be a combination of what drives you choose and what their workload is like. No easy answer there

    Also, 2.5" SATA drives are (IMO) fairly crappy.....while 2.5" SAS drives are ridiculously priced.

    Personally, if I was building from scratch with my current knowledge I would consider a ZFS volume of high capacity 3.5" drives with a 120/240GB SSD cache (120/240GB as most of them have the considerably better garbage collection compared to the 128/256GB models, making them better in a RAID environment).
    Main PC: Asus Rampage IV Extreme / 3960X@4.5GHz / Antec H1200 Pro / 32GB DDR3-1866 Quad Channel / Sapphire Fury X / Areca 1680 / 850W EVGA SuperNOVA Gold 2 / Corsair 600T / 2x Dell 3007 / 4 x 250GB SSD + 2 x 80GB SSD / 4 x 1TB HDD (RAID 10) / Windows 10 Pro, Yosemite & Ubuntu
    HTPC: AsRock Z77 Pro 4 / 3770K@4.2GHz / 24GB / GTX 1080 / SST-LC20 / Antec TP-550 / Hisense 65k5510 4K TV / HTC Vive / 2 x 240GB SSD + 12TB HDD Space / Race Seat / Logitech G29 / Win 10 Pro
    HTPC2: Asus AM1I-A / 5150 / 4GB / Corsair Force 3 240GB / Silverstone SST-ML05B + ST30SF / Samsung UE60H6200 TV / Windows 10 Pro
    Spare/Loaner: Gigabyte EX58-UD5 / i950 / 12GB / HD7870 / Corsair 300R / Silverpower 700W modular
    NAS 1: HP N40L / 12GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Arrays || NAS 2: Dell PowerEdge T110 II / 24GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Hybrid arrays || Network:Buffalo WZR-1166DHP w/DD-WRT + HP ProCurve 1800-24G
    Laptop: Dell Precision 5510 Printer: HP CP1515n || Phone: Huawei P30 || Other: Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 Pro 10.1 CM14 / Playstation 4 + G29 + 2TB Hybrid drive

  12. #12
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,335
    Thanks
    714
    Thanked
    1,406 times in 1,188 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 1TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 33 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    Re: 2.5 vs 3.5 inch spinny disks reliability

    I have been edging towards zfs, but under Linux it seems a bit of a risk and right now I don't think I have the time to set up anything too new to me so Centos will be the platform.

    The 2.5" drive I linked says it is 136MB/sec, so a single drive can keep up with network throughput. I want to run a couple of small VMs on there, so the quick seek speed of the 2.5" would be nice.

    Of course, prices being what they are I see that 500MB drive has gone up £3 each since yesterday.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •