Hi, On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 03:52:39PM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: > AFAIK their performance for RAID is no worse than for non-RAID uses. > There might be specific RAID uses where they suck more (apparently RAID > as done by ZFS is among them), but according to the above tests it's not > much worse at RAID than at other things.
Issues I have personally seen with these types of drives put into a conventional RAID environment: - pitiful random write performance once internal drive caches are exceeded - extremely slow rebuild/scrub speeds sometimes ten times slower than what I would expect from CMR drives. I think the poor performance would be unacceptable to most people. The extremely lengthy scrub cycles prove to be unwelcome throughout operational life, and when a failure does happen the vastly extended period of risk is very much not what is desired in a system that is supposed to be redundant. Taken as a whole it's definitely not how I would design a storage system like most RAIDs, and it's pretty easy to not do that. Possibly they got better since the last time I saw someone try to use these, but still it's easy to avoid, so it's not really a trade-off I will ever think about. Thanks, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
