Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Best HDD for CRU drive

This is topic Best HDD for CRU drive in forum Digital Cinema Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=003440

Posted by Biraj Thakuri (Member # 10203) on 09-22-2018, 12:07 AM:

Dear all,
I have a CRU drive DX115 that we use for transporting features from distributors to us. It has a lot of bad sectors and needs to be replaced.It currently has a Toshiba 1 TB hd in it.

I was thinking what is the best HDD for the CRU for this purpose?
For e.g. WD Red or Seagate Barracuda. Fastest and long lasting.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 09-22-2018, 02:52 AM:

It doesn't matter much. How large are these features? If this drive is shipped around often, you may consider buying an ssd of decent size, as it doesn't suffer from mechanical impacts. As SSD prices are currently going down, you may get away with a 512GB SSD. If that is too expensive or too small, and 1 or 2 TB ssd too expensive as well, you might try a 2.5" drive - they are usually built to survice mechanical stress better than their 3.5" counterparts. I have seen many CRU drive carriers with 2.5" drives built-in.

- Carsten

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-22-2018, 07:46 AM:

Do not get an "advanced format drive"--get a normal one with 512 bytes per sector. Avoid anything larger than 2TB. Also, I always recommend "enterprise" drives (e.g. Hitachi Ultrastar, Seagate Constellation, Western Digital Gold) over consumer-grade drives. Hitachi seems to be the most reliable at the moment. They are owned by Western Digital, but still a distinct product.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 09-22-2018, 01:56 PM:

If there's a significant cost difference between enterprise and consumer grade, is that really worth paying for a drive that is for content distribution (i.e. will clock up relatively few hours) drive, and not for RAID use?

Admittedly, 2TB enterprise and NAS drives are now so close in price to their consumer equivalents here ($90ish v. $70ish the last time I looked), that it's not a big issue. But if the price difference is greater in Nepal, it might be.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-22-2018, 02:18 PM:

One would need to do a large-scale study on this to come to a valid conclusion, but I would look at it this way: someone took the time and spent the money to make a movie. If spending an extra (say) $100 will reduce the risk of a failed screening, wouldn't it make sense to do so? The price difference won't even register on the scale of a film production, and even the most expensive drive will be cheaper than a 35mm print.

If nothing else, the longer warranty is probably worth the cost alone.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 09-22-2018, 02:35 PM:

I would suspect that cru hard drives fail more from repeated transportation rather than wearing out so i doubt that NAS or Enterprise drives are worth the extra cost as it will probably be dropped first

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 09-22-2018, 04:20 PM:

Those are both arguments in favor of SSDs for DCP distribution. As Gordon notes, the biggest threat is from mechanical shock damage in transportation, which an SSD is far more resilient against than a spinning rust drive (of any grade). As a 500GB drive (which will store pretty much the largest DCP in existence) is now down to around $100, Scott's argument becomes pretty compelling.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-23-2018, 02:40 PM:

I see no point in an Enterprise drive for CRU use. A desktop or, in particular, laptop drive would likely be best. A CRU drive isn't going to have a RAID to back it up so having a drive that will re-read a bad sector more times trying to get the data is going to be better.

I also could see where SSDs could be a benefit here.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-24-2018, 11:46 AM:

SSDs are great, but they do have data-retention problems if they sit on the shelf for some length of time (a year or more, more or less). This might be an issue for an unpopular title. Of course, regular hard disks aren't really made for shelf-stable storage, either.

Enterprise mechanical disks are about more than MTBF--they have a lower bit error rate tend to be constructed to be less sensitive to vibration, when compared with garden-variety hard disks.

Posted by Biraj Thakuri (Member # 10203) on 09-24-2018, 09:33 PM:

quote: Carsten Kurz
It doesn't matter much. How large are these features? If this drive is shipped around often, you may consider buying an ssd of decent size, as it doesn't suffer from mechanical impacts. As SSD prices are currently going down, you may get away with a 512GB SSD. If that is too expensive or too small, and 1 or 2 TB ssd too expensive as well, you might try a 2.5"

The size depends upon the no. of features released that day. Max I have received is 5 at one time. Maybe 1 TB is necessary at times like this. Yes the drive is cargo-ed by airways.

quote: Scott Norwood
Do not get an "advanced format drive"--get a normal one with 512 bytes per sector. Avoid anything larger than 2TB. Also, I always recommend "enterprise" drives (e.g. Hitachi Ultrastar, Seagate Constellation, Western Digital Gold) over consumer-grade drives. Hitachi seems to be the most reliable at the moment. They are owned by Western Digital, but still a distinct product.

Yes I was thinking the same larger than 2TB is a overkill and I have not got verified information about the reliability of enterprise drives. They are better and faster right?

quote: Leo Enticknap
If there's a significant cost difference between enterprise and consumer grade, is that really worth paying for a drive that is for content distribution (i.e. will clock up relatively few hours) drive, and not for RAID use?

I haven't seen the Cost difference but they must be not that great. Yes they are only for content distribution and maybe a bit reliable than consumer grade

quote: Scott Norwood
One would need to do a large-scale study on this to come to a valid conclusion, but I would look at it this way: someone took the time and spent the money to make a movie. If spending an extra (say) $100 will reduce the risk of a failed screening, wouldn't it make sense to do so? The price difference won't even register on the scale of a film production, and even the most expensive drive will be cheaper than a 35mm print.

Yes It makes sense to spend a little more on the medium rather than having a failed screen. So you are suggesting to go with the SSDs?

quote: Leo Enticknap
Those are both arguments in favor of SSDs for DCP distribution. As Gordon notes, the biggest threat is from mechanical shock damage in transportation, which an SSD is far more resilient against than a spinning rust drive (of any grade). As a 500GB drive (which will store pretty much the largest DCP in existence) is now down to around $100, Scott's argument becomes pretty compelling.

Yes Looking into it investing in SSDs is more favourable in terms of speed and reliability but the size maybe the issue as larger size SSDs are ridiculously expensive.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 09-25-2018, 02:57 PM:

As I said, if 1 or 2 TB SSDs are too expensive currently, then buy 1 or 2 TB 2.5" notebook drives. They are built to be shuffled around. More than 3.5" drives at least.

- Carsten