All three manufacturers began selling relatively small, from 2TB HDD SMR drives (tiled) , without specifying it in specs: WD , Seagate , Toshiba
In the English-language Internet and the media, such actions are criticized and, I think, fairly. In Russia, the THG resource was marked by an article Western Digital uses DM-SMR, making WD Red drives suitable for NAS and RAID . This article, in my value judgment, is a shameless lie, from title to conclusion: "Thanks to DM-SMR recording technology, Western Digital has made its WD Red hard drives suitable for NAS and RAID." It is interesting that in the English version of the article Western Digital Fesses Up: Some Red HDDs Use Slow SMR Tech Without Disclosure
there is no hint of such a distortion of facts
Also in the text thg.ru refers to Alan Brown,
The way out of this situation was found by Alan Brown, network administrator of UCL Mullard Space Science Laboratory. He found that when unloading data from RAID arrays, performed when adding a new disk to an existing RAID array and then rewriting it to balance access, the system removes new WD Red HDDs from its control.
It’s rather vague what exactly it means “the system takes out the new WD Red HDDs out of control.” - but according to the meaning of the proposal, this is the solution
At the same time, Alan did write on the subject - but the exact opposite
WD40EFAX, , 40 / , 120 / .
ZFS « » , . , WD40EFAX, , , , «ID (IDNF)», - -.
RAID- ( , RAID5 / 6 ZFS) , , , .
, , , , — 100 / 40 , «» , , , — , 40 , .
thg.ru . , . , NAS .
WD .
I've just purchased 3 WD REDs to replace aging drives in a ZFS array
ALL THREE are failing during resilvering with IDNF (sector ID not found) errors:
As far as I can understand, the problem with
WD RED - WD Red EFAX - SMR disks and have 256 MB of cache. EFRX disks - do not use SMR (these are ordinary CMR disks) and have a cache of 64 MB
Toshiba has several models more details here
Seagate has several series - more details here