Re: Prefered/supported HDD block size for RN300 series?
Under OS6 at least, ReadyNAS volume sector size is 4k, so the OS can handle 512(n or e) or 4K sectors. Presumably mixed, but I've never tried it. I don't think you'll see any significant difference performance-wise. But like @StephenB, all mine are 512e.
But long story short, MAMR is not SMR and does not have the same drawbacks. Nonetheless, it's a newer technology without a lot of real-world use to verify longevity.
Re: Prefered/supported HDD block size for RN300 series?
"Enterprise users need flexibility - the MG Series meets this need with a choice of 6 Gbit/s SATA and dual-port 12 Gbit/s SAS interface options as well as block size on demand (512e, 4Kn, 512n). Additionally, there are options for Toshiba hard drives with Self Encrypting technology or with Sanitize Instant Erase (SIE) technology, which means that in an instant all data is erased, without the need for overwriting the drive for hours."
Confusion understood. The way I'm reading the Toshiba specs, the different block sizes are controlled by the host - these are not options or versions (similar to SE and SIE).
But long story short, MAMR is not SMR and does not have the same drawbacks. Nonetheless, it's a newer technology without a lot of real-world use to verify longevity.
Other large capacity drives out there now are also using some form of energy-assisted magnetic recording (EAMR), so the reliability question isn't just limited to Toshiba MAMR drives. All of these energy-assisted approaches are aimed at increasing track density w/o the drawbacks of SMR.
Seagate has been providing HAMR drives to select customers (some large data centers) for some years. Both Seagate and WDC are saying they expect to be selling HAMR drives to the mass market by the end of next year.
"Enterprise users need flexibility - the MG Series meets this need with a choice of 6 Gbit/s SATA and dual-port 12 Gbit/s SAS interface options as well as block size on demand (512e, 4Kn, 512n).
Confusion understood. The way I'm reading the Toshiba specs, the different block sizes are controlled by the host - these are not options or versions (similar to SE and SIE).
It is confusing. I don't know why anyone would care about 512n today, though I guess it could offer a bit faster write speeds compared to 512e.
I think the block size can be set by the customer - at least that is what Seagate does with their fastformat tool.
Re: Prefered/supported HDD block size for RN300 series?
So if I comprehend the replies correct: a drive with MAMR or HAMR works well with RAID (and rebuilds) and does not have the drawbacks of SMR. Or in other words: a drive with MAMR will work just as fine for RAID as a drive with CMR.
Re: Prefered/supported HDD block size for RN300 series?
MAMR and HAMR are really just "CMR enhancements". They use microwaves or lasers to heat the magnetic material so that a smaller write head can be used and still get a similar charge, allowing the track density to be higher. But, unlike SMR, the tracks don't partially overlay each other. Having never used one nor done extensive research on them, I don't know whether or not that slows the write cycle down (one would think it would, but maybe it's negligible) to affect continuous writing. Since the manufacturers are touting it as "not having the drawbacks of SMR", I have to assume that it doesn't.
