4kn vs 512e

Which of the following retains the indevelopment it's storing when the mechanism power is turned off?
*

I am in the procedure of gaining some Hard Drives for my brand-new file server and also I desire to usage Seagate Enterprice Capacity 3.5 Hard Drives. However on the page I can see 512e, 4kn and also 512n.

You watching: 4kn vs 512e

Kindly help if I need to bother myselft through these and also the ideal one to choose.

The server to be supplied is Dell PowerEdge R720


(Select target option)Seagate Capacity Hard DriveSeagate Enterpclimb NAS HDDWD Red NAS HDDWD Red Pro NAS HDDHitachi UltrastarWD ReOtherSSD

Northlandeng

Not learning even more details, like what operating system or drive controller you have actually, I would say your best bet is to go via 512n because it will certainly work via pretty much anything. These numbers have to perform with the physical sector size of the drive. 512n drives have actually a 512 byte physical sector size. 512e and 4Kn have actually 4096 byte sectors, via 512e presenting itself to the system as if it had actually 512 byte sectors. 512e and also 4Kn are newer requirements, 512e being the transition conventional between 512n and also 4Kn, and are not known by older hardware and software.

As much as SAS vs. SATA, aget this depends on the controller. If you have actually the H310 or H710/H710P controller, then SAS would be my reference, yet SATA will certainly job-related. If you just have the S110 controller, you are restricted to SATA.


View this "Best Answer" in the replies listed below »

20 Replies


· · ·

Datil
OP
Best Answer
Northlandeng
This perkid is a proved experienced.
Verify your account to permit IT peers to view that you are a experienced.
Aug 12, 2016 at 01:51 UTC

Not understanding more details, choose what operating system or drive controller you have actually, I would say your ideal bet is to go with 512n bereason it will certainly occupational via pretty much anypoint. These numbers need to do via the physical sector dimension of the drive. 512n drives have a 512 byte physical sector dimension. 512e and also 4Kn have actually 4096 byte sectors, with 512e presenting itself to the mechanism as if it had 512 byte sectors. 512e and 4Kn are newer standards, 512e being the shift traditional between 512n and 4Kn, and are not known by older hardware and also software.

As much as SAS vs. SATA, again this depends on the controller. If you have the H310 or H710/H710P controller, then SAS would certainly be my referral, however SATA will work. If you just have actually the S110 controller, you are restricted to SATA.


3
· · ·
*

Thai Pepper
OP
Obsolesce
This person is a confirmed expert.
Verify your account to enable IT peers to see that you are a skilled.
Aug 12, 2016 at 03:40 UTC

Northlandeng wrote:

Not knowing even more details, like what operating system or drive controller you have actually, I would certainly say your finest bet is to go with 512n because it will certainly job-related through pretty a lot anything. These numbers have to perform with the physical sector size of the drive. 512n drives have actually a 512 byte physical sector size. 512e and 4Kn have 4096 byte sectors, through 512e presenting itself to the system as if it had actually 512 byte sectors. 512e and 4Kn are newer requirements, 512e being the transition standard between 512n and also 4Kn, and are not well-known by older hardware and also software application.

See more: ‎The Imperial March/ Darth Vader Ringtone Iphone 6, Darth Vader Theme Ringtone: Appstore For

As far as SAS vs. SATA, aacquire this relies on the controller. If you have actually the H310 or H710/H710P controller, then SAS would be my referral, but SATA will certainly work-related. If you only have the S110 controller, you are restricted to SATA.

Also, what dimension hard drives are you looking to buy? 2TB+ ?
0
· · ·
Mace
OP
StorageNinja
This person is a proved experienced.
Verify your account to allow IT peers to view that you are a experienced.
Aug 12, 2016 at 17:19 UTC

vSpright here just supports 512N currently. You"ll run into performance worries making use of 512e or 4KN drives via VMFS presently. 


1
· · ·
Jalapeno
OP
LoveToFlyGuy
This perboy is a verified skilled.
Verify your account to permit IT peers to check out that you are a professional.
Dec 28, 2016 at 22:26 UTC

YMMV, yet I newly put up an R710 using Seagate Enterpclimb Capacity (512e) 6TB drives with the H700 controller, and haven"t had actually any type of problems after 3 months in procedure.


0
· · ·
Poblano
OP
boyejoayo Dec 29, 2016 at 12:42 UTC

Interesting...


0
· · ·
Thai Pepper
OP
snorble Mar 31, 2017 at 03:12 UTC

StorageNinja wrote:

vSpright here just supports 512N currently. You"ll run right into performance problems utilizing 512e or 4KN drives via VMFS currently. 

Is this still the case? I watch 512e drives are supported currently, however will 512n or 4KN still give better performance? The just large-ish capacity SSDs I see from Dell are the 1.92TB 512e right currently. Thanks to the flash shortage I likewise acquire to use 1.6TB create buffers per disk group, lol
0
· · ·
Mace
OP
StorageNinja
This perchild is a confirmed experienced.
Verify your account to permit IT peers to check out that you are a expert.
Mar 31, 2017 at 05:43 UTC

snorble wrote:

StorageNinja wrote:

vSphere only supports 512N currently. You"ll run into performance problems making use of 512e or 4KN drives via VMFS presently. 

Is this still the case? I see 512e drives are supported currently, but will certainly 512n or 4KN still give better performance? l512e is sustained as of 6.5 (by both vSphere core storage and vSAN).

It"s going to percreate the exact same as 512n efficiently is my knowledge from my last conversation via design. I"m getting among those guys on the podactors week after next and we"ll do a deep dive on this stuff.

snorble wrote:

 I see from Dell are the 1.92TB 512e best now. Thanks to the flash shortage I additionally obtain to use 1.6TB create buffers per disk team, lolthere are technically 3.94TB SSD drives in a 512N presentation layer, it"s simply that supply chain on them is a little painful appropriate currently.

See more: Script To Change Local Admin Password On All Workstations Computers

Don"t usage 1.6TB for write buffers, acquire 2 x 800GB (if 2 disk groups) or 4x 400GB (if 4 disk groups). There"s no significant advantage past 1.6TB full per host for create buffer best currently.