Disk IO Errors

[sianderson]

ok so last night i spotted my F2-210 was not accessible over the network (all lights were on and the lan port flashing away but not reachable over the network)

turned it off, and back on it would boot up (contious pinging from another machine) that it would get to a point and just become none reachable again so suspect hard drive issues, repeated steps quite a few times and same thing happened every time (also lots of disk access noises)

trying to format one of the drives in the PC to set up again as a clean drive, reveals that it has Disk IO Errors, am i best just cutting my losses and accepting that a 5 year old 6TB is now junk or is it likely something that can be used again?

i put a spare 120gb SSD in bay one and reset it up, and running the other (newer) Baracuda in the 2nd bay as a single drive and it seems to be behaving without any issues

(before anyone starts yes its a Seagate Baracuda and i know they arent on the compatibility list, but it had been working just fine for years)

i do have concerns that something just isnt right with the concept of RAID and TM, as surely the idea of running 2x Drives in a raid array should mean if one drive goes down the NAS and data are secure on the other drive, but infact it took the entire system offline and i struggled to get the nas drive up and running again without losing all the data!

[Gremlin]

I buy used drives from Ebay, so I'm not going to diss your 5yr old

As far as TM and raid are concerned, they are the same as everyone else - except when it comes to Traid. Probably more concern might be expressed about raid (5 and/or 6 and combinations) and btrfs. If you were to consider Traid as "experimental" and btrfs with raid 5/6 as a "possible source of concern" then, maybe, stick to ext4 and known reliability (as much as anything is) of standard raid. You give up some expansion/rebuild options in favour of peace of mind. YMMV.

However, as you are running a 2 drive array that sort of eliminates some of the concern. Raid 1 with ext4 file system should be stable whatever else is going on. As far as your old drive is concerned I'm not clear if that is also a Baracuda? If the old drive is a Baracuda I would seriously consider swapping both sooner or later to something more suited. You could "treat" the old drive to a good read/write scan/test rather than just a format (you have already deleted all the data anyway it seems), using 3rd party software of your choice.

Good luck.

[sianderson]

with it being the F2-210 (ARM) they pulled the support for BTRFS as that was one the reasons why very unstable when i had it in the first place (2020) so the only choice on this unit is ext4 under TOS 4

yes both drives were baracuda's (i stupidly bought a second one when i had the F2-423 which is more recent thinking i would stick to what i knew) but the F2-423 rejected it straight away with speeds dropping down to 0mb etc, so i'm learning the hardway but didnt want to accept that these drives were £130 each and useless

to me it just makes a lot more sense to have TOS running from some other sort of drive, i guess what im doing now in the F2-424 by putting an M2 drive in, and then that still leaves the two bays free for large data disks, so i will probably do the same for the F2-423 so if one of the data drives goes down then it should still keep the nas drive working and not take it offline

[sianderson]

i guess it likes to keep me on my toes, realised why i didnt use that 120gb i had lying around, it was also unstable in the F2-210

oh well took a chance and wiped the "dodgy" barracuda again and guess what? its now stable again and back in the original configuration, just syncing the raid array and putting the data back on and then its back to normal

[sianderson]

spoke too soon, i dont know if this thread will help anyone, but back to stuttering access, writing at 40mb and drop down to 0, then maybe writing at 5 - 10mb, something just didnt feel right

found a good 240gb SSD and put it in bay one on its own, set up F2-210 as per normal, tested that it was smooth and quick so know the NAS drive is working as it should, dropped a 6tb baracudda in the 2nd bay and started having issues, so definitely hard drives being the issue

then had a brainwave, i have an external USB enclosure put the 6tb barracuda in it that i was struggling with and wow its now performing at high speed as it should on the network and the F2-210 is still just as responsive

so atleast i havent wasted any money on these drives, its just clear that TOS 4 does not like them in the actual drive bays but put though the USB port then they have no issues with them, yes i lose the raid capability but atleast they can peform their function

[sianderson]

Out of interest what makes the barracuda not compatible?

Reason for asking I spotted adverts for Ugreen who are advertising using barracudas in their NAS drives, so clearly not a hard drive issue and is designed to be used in a nas drive, but presumably something to do with the software / specific hardware that TM use?

[TMroy]

Why did Seagate launch NAS-specific hard drives?

Seagate developed dedicated NAS hard drives like the IronWolf and IronWolf Pro series to meet the specific demands of Network-Attached Storage (NAS) systems. These devices have unique operating characteristics:

1. 24/7 Continuous Operation: Unlike desktop PCs that run for a few hours a day, NAS devices are designed to be powered on and operational all the time.
2. Multi-Bay Environment: NAS enclosures house multiple hard drives in close proximity. These drives generate heat and vibration that can affect each other.
3. High Concurrent Workloads: In a home or small office, multiple users may access the NAS simultaneously for reading and writing files, resulting in a much higher workload than a typical desktop PC.
4. High-Value Data: NAS systems are often used to store critical data like photos, documents, and work projects, making reliability and data integrity paramount.

NAS drives are specifically engineered and optimized for these rigorous conditions.

Why are Barracuda drives unsuitable for use as NAS drives?

The Barracuda series is designed as consumer-grade hard drives for desktop computers. They are built for occasional use in a single-drive environment, not for continuous operation in a multi-drive NAS. Using them in a NAS introduces several key risks:

1. Workload Rate Limit

This is the most critical technical difference.
• NAS Drives (e.g., IronWolf): Have a high Workload Rate rating (e.g., 180 TB/year or 550 TB/year). This means they are designed to handle the intense, constant read/write cycles expected in a NAS environment.

• Barracuda Drives: Have a much lower workload rating (typically 55 TB/year). They are built for the intermittent usage of a desktop (~8 hours a day). Sustaining a NAS's high workload will significantly shorten their lifespan and likely lead to premature failure.

Analogy: A Barracuda drive is designed for "sprinting" (occasional desktop use), while a NAS drive is designed for a "marathon" (24/7 operation). Using a sprinter for a marathon will lead to an early breakdown.

2. Vibration Resistance

• NAS Drives (e.g., IronWolf): Are equipped with Rotational Vibration (RV) sensors. In a multi-drive NAS, the simultaneous operation of all drives creates a complex vibration field. RV sensors detect and compensate for these vibrations in real-time, ensuring the read/write heads remain accurately positioned. This drastically reduces errors and performance degradation.

• Barracuda Drives: Lack RV sensors. In a multi-bay NAS, they are highly susceptible to vibration, which leads to increased read/write errors, unstable performance, and a higher risk of failure as the heads constantly need to retry and recalibrate.

3. Firmware Optimization (TLER/ERC)

• NAS Drives (e.g., IronWolf): Support features like TLER (Time-Limited Error Recovery) or ERC (Error Recovery Control). In a RAID array, if a drive encounters a read error, it will only try to recover for a short, predefined time (e.g., 7 seconds) before reporting the error to the RAID controller. This prevents the controller from mistakenly thinking the drive has failed and dropping it from the array.

• Barracuda Drives: Do not support TLER/ERC. Their firmware will attempt a long, deep recovery process (which can take over 10 seconds). This often causes the RAID controller to timeout, mark the drive as "failed," and rebuild the array unnecessarily—a process known as "RAID dropout."

4. Reliability Metrics (MTBF) and Warranty

• NAS Drives (e.g., IronWolf): Feature a higher Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) (e.g., 1 million or 1.2 million hours) and come with a longer warranty (typically 3 or 5 years). This reflects the manufacturer's confidence in the drive's ability to perform under demanding conditions.

• Barracuda Drives: Have a lower MTBF and a standard 2-year warranty, which aligns with their intended use in desktop environments.

5. Additional Features

• NAS Drives (e.g., IronWolf): Often include ecosystem features like Seagate's IronWolf Health Management (IHM), which proactively monitors drive and environmental health to provide warnings and help prevent data loss.

• Barracuda Drives: Lack these specialized NAS-focused features.

Summary Table

Feature NAS Drive (e.g., IronWolf) Desktop Drive (e.g., Barracuda) Impact in a NAS

Workload Rating High (e.g., 180+ TB/year) Low (~55 TB/year) Barracuda drives are prone to premature failure due to overwork.

Vibration Handling Equipped with RV Sensors No RV Sensors Barracuda drives suffer from higher error rates and unstable performance.

RAID Support Supports TLER/ERC No TLER/ERC Support High risk of RAID dropouts and unnecessary array rebuilds.

Designed Runtime Rated for 24/7 Operation Rated for 8x5 Operation Barracuda drives are not built for non-stop operation.

Warranty Longer (3 or 5 years) Shorter (Typically 2 years) Reflects the difference in expected durability and use case.

Conclusion:

Seagate launched NAS-specific drives to provide a solution that is perfectly matched to the demanding NAS environment, prioritizing maximum reliability, performance, and data protection.

While using a Barracuda drive in a NAS might seem like a cost-saving measure in the short term, it represents a significant risk to your valuable data. For any important data stored on a NAS, investing in purpose-built NAS hard drives is a wise and necessary choice.

[TMroy]

I can't pinpoint the exact issue since I don’t have the details of your specific setup. However, Barracuda drives are generally not recommended for NAS use. They tend to exhibit instability in NAS environments, especially in RAID configurations. That said, it doesn’t mean every deployment will fail—some users do use Barracuda drives in their NAS systems without reporting issues.