WD Red vs WD Green vs Seagate 3TB Hard Drive Speeds - Page 25 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #721 of 853 Old 08-20-2013, 10:27 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,685
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Liked: 679
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1438027/planning-to-rebuild-and-upgrade-my-30tb-whs-flexraid-media-server-information-requested/1200_100#post_23648928


Some interesting reports from another forum member posting for some help with generally low performance and slow parity rebuild times in my thread ^^


Quote:
Originally Posted by shepP View Post

Ok here are the results of the HD read tests and they don't look good. They all seem to show the same pattern with a downward slope. Every single drive failed the 80MB/s minimum frown.gif

HD Tune Pro: WDC WD30EFRX-68AX9N0 Benchmark (3TB)
Test capacity: full
Read transfer rate
Transfer Rate Minimum : 63.8 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum : 151.5 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average : 111.2 MB/s
Access Time : 20.8 ms
Burst Rate : 157.8 MB/s
CPU Usage : 20.0%

HD Tune Pro: ST3500630AS Benchmark (500GB)
Test capacity: full
Read transfer rate
Transfer Rate Minimum : 39.1 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum : 66.7 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average : 59.7 MB/s
Access Time : 13.6 ms
Burst Rate : 116.5 MB/s
CPU Usage : 15.8%

HD Tune Pro: ST3500418AS Benchmark (500GB)
Test capacity: full
Read transfer rate
Transfer Rate Minimum : 68.9 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum : 83.6 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average : 82.0 MB/s
Access Time : 14.2 ms
Burst Rate : 83.6 MB/s
CPU Usage : 7.4%

HD Tune Pro: ST32000542AS Benchmark (2TB)
Test capacity: full
Read transfer rate
Transfer Rate Minimum : 55.2 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum : 115.4 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average : 89.1 MB/s
Access Time : 14.3 ms
Burst Rate : 209.9 MB/s
CPU Usage : 18.5%

HD Tune Pro: ST3500630AS Benchmark (500GB)
Test capacity: full
Read transfer rate
Transfer Rate Minimum : 38.9 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum : 67.1 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average : 60.5 MB/s
Access Time : 13.2 ms
Burst Rate : 116.5 MB/s
CPU Usage : 14.5%

HD Tune Pro: ST3500418AS Benchmark (500GB)
Test capacity: full

Read transfer rate
Transfer Rate Minimum : 62.2 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum : 83.3 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average : 81.7 MB/s
Access Time : 14.1 ms
Burst Rate : 82.3 MB/s
CPU Usage : 7.1%

HD Tune Pro: ST3500630AS Benchmark (500GB)
Test capacity: full
Read transfer rate
Transfer Rate Minimum : 39.4 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum : 59.3 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average : 55.9 MB/s
Access Time : 13.1 ms
Burst Rate : 80.9 MB/s
CPU Usage : 6.0%

HD Tune Pro: ST3500320AS Benchmark (500GB)
Test capacity: full
Read transfer rate
Transfer Rate Minimum : 52.8 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum : 81.9 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average : 75.6 MB/s
Access Time : 11.8 ms
Burst Rate : 82.2 MB/s
CPU Usage : 6.7%

HD Tune Pro: HPT DISK 1_0 Benchmark (3TB)
Test capacity: full
Read transfer rate
Transfer Rate Minimum : 64.5 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum : 145.8 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average : 109.4 MB/s
Access Time : 20.7 ms
Burst Rate : 155.7 MB/s
CPU Usage : 9.3%

HD Tune Pro: Seagate ST32000542AS Benchmark (2TB)
Test capacity: full
Read transfer rate
Transfer Rate Minimum : 57.9 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum : 119.3 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average : 93.6 MB/s
Access Time : 14.1 ms
Burst Rate : 132.6 MB/s
CPU Usage : 7.8%

HD Tune Pro: HPT DISK 0_0 Benchmark (3TB)
Test capacity: full
Read transfer rate
Transfer Rate Minimum : 64.8 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum : 145.3 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average : 114.2 MB/s
Access Time : 20.8 ms
Burst Rate : 156.0 MB/s
CPU Usage : 8.6%

HD Tune Pro: HPT DISK 0_1 Benchmark (3TB)
Test capacity: full
Read transfer rate
Transfer Rate Minimum : 61.0 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum : 137.9 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average : 109.4 MB/s
Access Time : 20.9 ms
Burst Rate : 158.5 MB/s
CPU Usage : 8.6%


I had a detailed response in my thread and link above but this shows generally some of the things I have been saying.

First, Ideal benchmarks are only that- ideals. Real world performance can and probably will be very different (worse) Second, notice he's using mostly slower spindle speed drives from various MFG's with generally the same results. Third, he's now looking at a long road to go and replace all those with a modern faster alternative (if he cares enough to do it). I think for this reason it's sometimes more ideal to consider this stuff up front when choosing a HDD and save the trouble down the road.

Much of the personal bias and arguments defending the 5400rpm speed drives are not helping educate people into making an informed decision because they are presenting 5400rpm and the most postive light possible, which isn't going to translate directly into an actual real world experience. I've been down that road of making up for it- slowly replacing 10 slower spindle HDD's with faster ones over time. Not ideal - and I wish I knew a little more before I bought all those 5400rpm drives back in 2010 and 2011.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #722 of 853 Old 08-20-2013, 10:39 AM
Advanced Member
 
itznfb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Much of the personal bias and arguments defending the 5400rpm speed drives are not helping educate people into making an informed decision because they are presenting 5400rpm and the most postive light possible, which isn't going to translate directly into an actual real world experience. I've been down that road of making up for it- slowly replacing 10 slower spindle HDD's with faster ones over time. Not ideal - and I wish I knew a little more before I bought all those 5400rpm drives back in 2010 and 2011.

This is the definition of misinforming people. You and 1 or 2 other people on the internet have some obsessive need to transfer terabytes worth of movies around 24/7. As I've already said I've tested hundreds of drives and I've filled hundreds of drives including the ones in this thread title and the difference in speed between them and the transfer times are negligible. If you're getting 65MB/s - 80MB/s averages on any modern drive no matter how full it is then there is another bottleneck in your system IT IS NOT THE DRIVE. I don't have nor have I used a drive that dips below 100MB/s whether it be 5400rpm or 15,000rpm.

Even if your number were right (which they aren't) they would be more than sufficient for 99.9% of the people on this forum and anyone not on this forum. Implying that slow spindle speeds have somehow hindered your multimedia experience and you've been forced to upgrade is a flat out lie.
assassin likes this.

Running Windows Home Server 2011 Evil Abandoned Edition
itznfb is offline  
post #723 of 853 Old 08-20-2013, 10:56 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

Even if your number were right (which they aren't) they would be more than sufficient for 99.9% of the people on this forum and anyone not on this forum. Implying that slow spindle speeds have somehow hindered your multimedia experience and you've been forced to upgrade is a flat out lie.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell.
assassin is offline  
post #724 of 853 Old 08-20-2013, 11:37 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,685
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Liked: 679
That's BS.

I will STFU and respect the argument that it's not needed or that the lower performance of 5400rpm drives is acceptable. Previously there has been little admittance of that, and mostly just personal bias defending the 5400rpm drives and pretending they are better than they are.

How is posting independent review benchmarks make my numbers wrong ? To my knowledge I've done the most posting of actual independent data than anyone else. I don't see other's posting more accurate data than me ??

You guys really need to get your message to be more clear:

First- You are mad I voice an opinion without any data and accuse me of presenting opinion as fact
Second- You object if I post data requested, claiming some BS that independent professional reviews are wrong and your results are home are better, even though no data is posted from anyone.
Third- You say that I am actually right and 5400rpm actually are slow but that does not matter because even at 60MB/sec speeds they are plenty fast for serving media.

which is the truth ? ^

I tend to think the most recently voiced opinions are. Lower spindle speed HDD's are plenty fast enough or serving media and provide a perfectly acceptable experience at that, but on issues of parity rebuild times or large copy transfers they might leave some people disappointed. I seem to be one of those types of people and you seem not to be one of those people. The fact the drive is running full tilt almost twice as long because it's slower at such an event also negates much of the very small energy savings you'd expect from a 5400rpm drive, and my opinion is energy savings with slower spindle speeds is generally overrated and insignificant. So- makes you wonder if paying more $$ for a low spindle speed HDD makes sense.

This entire argument can be had now about if 5400rpm drives are better or worse- or worth the cost. But that is a different argument, and it does not take an exaggeration of 5400rpm capabilities or benefits to have such a conversation.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #725 of 853 Old 08-20-2013, 11:50 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,685
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Liked: 679
Changing gears:

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/5557/seagate-nas-hdd-st4000vn000-4000gb-hdd-review/index9.html#kEpV8JIXXuwUVmRL.99

Really cool read: ^

It was interesting for me to read about the actual difference between the NAS specific Seagate 4TB and the normal Seagate 4TB. Previously I had always viewed NAS drives as re-badged "green" drives with little differentiation hardly worth the extra cost. I've generally been unimpressed with the WD RED due to my viewing it from this angle. Very Interesting to read some differences Seagate has on the new line, differences I did not know about and I do not believe existed on the previous NAS line Seagate had.
Quote:
I must admit, after receiving the press release for the NAS HDD, I thought this was just a rebadged Desktop HDD, but it's not. Seagate has taken much of what they have learned in the enterprise sector and applied it to a drive, which is in reach of the average consumer. We now have technology like dual plane balance and NASWorks that supports highly customized error recovery controls, power management and higher vibration tolerance catered just for the 24/7 high heat environment of your typical NAS appliance.

Performance of the NAS HDD was on par with the Desktop variant throughout most of our testing, and well ahead of the 1TB single platter WD Red NAS drive. Most notably the performance was a balanced effort between read and write speeds, this coming as a byproduct of Seagate's NASWorks technology.

Read more at http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/5557/seagate-nas-hdd-st4000vn000-4000gb-hdd-review/index9.html#0jUKFM5x4Ex1mWeK.99

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #726 of 853 Old 08-20-2013, 12:20 PM
Advanced Member
 
itznfb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

That's BS.

I will STFU and respect the argument that it's not needed or that the lower performance of 5400rpm drives is acceptable. Previously there has been little admittance of that, and mostly just personal bias defending the 5400rpm drives and pretending they are better than they are.

How is posting independent review benchmarks make my numbers wrong ? To my knowledge I've done the most posting of actual independent data than anyone else. I don't see other's posting more accurate data than me ??

You guys really need to get your message to be more clear:

First- You are mad I voice an opinion without any data and accuse me of presenting opinion as fact
Second- You object if I post data requested, claiming some BS that independent professional reviews are wrong and your results are home are better, even though no data is posted from anyone.
Third- You say that I am actually right and 5400rpm actually are slow but that does not matter because even at 60MB/sec speeds they are plenty fast for serving media.

which is the truth ? ^

I tend to think the most recently voiced opinions are. Lower spindle speed HDD's are plenty fast enough or serving media and provide a perfectly acceptable experience at that, but on issues of parity rebuild times or large copy transfers they might leave some people disappointed. I seem to be one of those types of people and you seem not to be one of those people. The fact the drive is running full tilt almost twice as long because it's slower at such an event also negates much of the very small energy savings you'd expect from a 5400rpm drive, and my opinion is energy savings with slower spindle speeds is generally overrated and insignificant. So- makes you wonder if paying more $$ for a low spindle speed HDD makes sense.

This entire argument can be had now about if 5400rpm drives are better or worse- or worth the cost. But that is a different argument, and it does not take an exaggeration of 5400rpm capabilities or benefits to have such a conversation.

I've maintained the entire time that the 7200.14 has higher file transfer throughput but that it's a NEGLIGIBLE difference. You keep claiming that the 7200.14 is consistently over 100MB/s faster than the Reds which is a lie. There's no nice way to put it, it's just a lie. Your completely inaccurate synthetic benchmark reviews don't even back your claims.
None of the drives typically used here for media hit 60MB/s sequential throughput. None of them. Again, if they are that's your system or possibly a bad drive causing that performance. If you want to see your drive's actual through put then install a clean version of Windows on a SSD and plug 1 drive into another 6Gbps port and run an HDDScan Erase. Every single Red that I have put through HDDScan maintains 145MB/s until the end of the drive. It starts at 185MB/s and slowly makes it way down to 145MB/s. The 7200.14 starts around 200MB/s and ends around the same low spot of 145MB/s. I see the EXACT same results on both drives as I'm restoring someone's data to a new drive or copying media to a drive. The ONLY time I see it drop below 145MB/s is if there are other things going on in the system. If you are not seeing this performance then don't blame it on the drive. I've literally done this HUNDREDS of times with the same results over and over. On parity rebuilds in FlexRAID the WD Reds stomp all over the Seagate 7200.14. I haven't figured out yet why the Reds are finishing so much faster but the Reds consistently finish 3 hours faster than the 7200.14. So I doubt they are going to disappoint anyone.
Finally... every Red I've purchased for personal use I've purchased at $89.99 so I'm not paying anything extra for the benefits I get. At least once a month for the past few months they've shown up on NE ShellShocker deals at $89.99 and twice in the past 2 months for $109.99.

Running Windows Home Server 2011 Evil Abandoned Edition
itznfb is offline  
post #727 of 853 Old 08-20-2013, 01:32 PM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 147
For me, moving hundreds of gigs of data is more often than I would like. I had 1TB and 2TB drives in my system because they were the largest available at the time. I later bought 3TB drives and then 4TB drives when they became available. At a certain point I needed to move my movies off the 1TB drives and onto the others since I only have 8 slots avaible for storage (1 slot is used for my OS drive and one for my Recorded TV drive). One of those 8 is used for the parity drive, leaving only 7 drives. When I bought the 4TB drive I had to remove a 1TB to make room. I temporarily removed a different drive to free up a SATA port and then transfered almost a terabyte of movies. I did the same when I replaced the other 1TB drive and then a 2TB drive.

Now I have a lot of free space (roughly 3 TB worth) so I will not have to move anything for some time. When I do, though, I will be moving almost 2 TB worth of data at one time. 1.5 times faster means a lot less time waiting and I am impatient. smile.gif
cybrsage is offline  
post #728 of 853 Old 08-20-2013, 01:35 PM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

Even if your number were right (which they aren't) they would be more than sufficient for 99.9% of the people on this forum and anyone not on this forum. Implying that slow spindle speeds have somehow hindered your multimedia experience and you've been forced to upgrade is a flat out lie.

They are the same numbers (more or less) that all the major review sites show. You are correct about the speed being plenty to serve up media. SATA 1 can serve media fast enough, after all. My issue is with moving data around, which I seem to do more than I would like to do.
cybrsage is offline  
post #729 of 853 Old 08-20-2013, 01:46 PM
Advanced Member
 
itznfb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

They are the same numbers (more or less) that all the major review sites show. You are correct about the speed being plenty to serve up media. SATA 1 can serve media fast enough, after all. My issue is with moving data around, which I seem to do more than I would like to do.

The issue is that the synthetic benchmarks are completely misleading. When I run the same benchmark application they use in the reviews I get crappy results too. However when I physically copy a file or rebuild a drive or initialize parity or 0 a drive I get real numbers that don't equate to those useless benchmark applications.

Running Windows Home Server 2011 Evil Abandoned Edition
itznfb is offline  
post #730 of 853 Old 08-20-2013, 03:03 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

The issue is that the synthetic benchmarks are completely misleading. When I run the same benchmark application they use in the reviews I get crappy results too. However when I physically copy a file or rebuild a drive or initialize parity or 0 a drive I get real numbers that don't equate to those useless benchmark applications.

That's why I view the simple yet elegant "copy and paste" test to be the best.

Grab a stop watch. Paste a large file from point a to point b and record the time.

All drives are very similar with the result despite their synthetic benchmarks.

See the very beginning of this thread for examples.
assassin is offline  
post #731 of 853 Old 08-20-2013, 03:14 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,685
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Liked: 679
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

The issue is that the synthetic benchmarks are completely misleading. When I run the same benchmark application they use in the reviews I get crappy results too. However when I physically copy a file or rebuild a drive or initialize parity or 0 a drive I get real numbers that don't equate to those useless benchmark applications.

They (pro reviews) post average and max reads and writes so I don't understand how this is possible. They are results that are pretty close to what I see myself too. This confuses me. ^

For the sake of my sanity I'd like to shake hands, and move on. biggrin.gif Can we ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

That's why I view the simple yet elegant "copy and paste" test to be the best.

Grab a stop watch. Paste a large file from point a to point b and record the time.

All drives are very similar with the result despite their synthetic benchmarks.

No. Your 100% wrong.

I do this probably more than anyone else around here and what you say is just so wrong.

Using windows copy paste or TeraCopy (which I like) shows the average speeds- and it seems accurate if you time it and reverse engineer the speed from the time and file size.

A 3TB 7200.14 Seagate versus a 3TB WD EXRX for example- your going to see a pretty big difference in the time it takes for a 100GB file or folder transfer (four blueray MKV's about 25GB each).

In some cases it's a very significant difference in time. (five minutes or more)

That might not seem like a big deal until you realize that the Seagate completes the task in under 10 minutes total, for 5 minutes or more is a pretty significant.

It turns into an extra half hour if your talking about a larger transfer- and it can turn into a couple hours if your trying to do a parity update. You and many others might simply not care about it much, but there still remains a difference others might care about. The bottom line is I don't want my server to read or write at only 50 or 60MB/sec. I want to saturate my LAN and do 100MB/sec+ Is that too much to ask for ?

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #732 of 853 Old 08-20-2013, 03:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dark_Slayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,315
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

The issue is that the synthetic benchmarks are completely misleading. When I run the same benchmark application they use in the reviews I get crappy results too. However when I physically copy a file or rebuild a drive or initialize parity or 0 a drive I get real numbers that don't equate to those useless benchmark applications.
It's interesting you feel this way in regards to synthetic benchmarks, but differently about . . .
Quote:
OFFICIAL specs from the manufacturers

As seen below
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

I already linked the Seagate and WD spec sheets and they align with independent testing. The WD Red consumes 4.4W at full speed and the Seagate consumes 8W. That is WD Black territory NOT media server territory. WD Reds will go into a low power state Standby that the Seagate are not capable of where the Red will consume .6W and the Seagate is still consuming 5.4W idle. Sorry, but the Red destroys the Seagate in terms of power consumption. This has already been discussed and they are OFFICIAL specs from both manufacturers.... the fact that you guys are debating it is a little ridiculous. It's as factual as it gets. (I'm responding your post as well as Mfusicks quoted posts but it's a little confusing since the nested posting doesn't show up smile.gif )

Which was a response to my questioning of power consumption figures as quoted below
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_Slayer View Post

I don't believe this is correct. Have you measured any of the 7200.14 systems you've built for power output??

I say this because the internet has a little irregularity on 7200.14 idle power figures
-according to the OEM they idle at 5.4W avg
-according to Anandtech they idle at 6.43W avg
-according to storagereviews they idle at 5.08W avg

The only thing about this that doesn't make any sense is my own testing with a kill a watt

Accordingly, if I run 4x7200.14 drives in my server (W8) and configure the windows power management option to "NEVER" for "sleep hard disks after" then I should be seeing idle power consumption on all drives, correct? At 4 drives I should see an extra 20W when I flip the switch, but with those 4 in addition to a 1TB WD blue and 3xHGST 7k4000 drives I only see a difference of 13-18W when I change that setting in Windows. I know that it wakes them up, because if I put my ear next to the server I can hear them spin up. I think they must idle pretty low

When I said "idle pretty low" I don't really know or care what power state they are in. It's good in theory, but in practice (running a windows 8 server) I stick to the windows power management functions. With those options, my results don't jive with the published or "review" numbers. I asked you about "your" numbers since you indicated building several similar systems (out of curiosity, not contempt)


Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

Finally... every Red I've purchased for personal use I've purchased at $89.99 so I'm not paying anything extra for the benefits I get. At least once a month for the past few months they've shown up on NE ShellShocker deals at $89.99 and twice in the past 2 months for $109.99.
Also, as to this part, I assume that you are talking about 2TB REDs. We are talking 3TB 7200.14 for $90 (or less at multiple occaisions) compared to a 2TB RED for $90. This is the best deal I've seen recently for a 3TB RED http://www.techbargains.com/news_displayItem.cfm/362436
Dark_Slayer is online now  
post #733 of 853 Old 08-20-2013, 03:41 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,685
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Liked: 679
Yeah good points. I am decidedly done with 2TB drives. Too small. 3TB is almost too small now. Bigger is better and we are now living in a world of 4TB drives, and soon 5TB drives. There is just no place for 2TB anymore. They are too small. You will save much more energy and heat and noise by employing half the amount of larger drives.

The power consumption, heat and noise would be quite significant with 15 2TB WD RED or GREEN 5400rpm drives versus 7 Seagate 4TB 5900rpm drives (NAS or normal versions). That is a no brainer.

Plus it appears the Seagate is a superior drive (opinion) in nearly everything. I might be different, but I generally automatically disregard 2TB drives.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #734 of 853 Old 08-20-2013, 06:52 PM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

That's why I view the simple yet elegant "copy and paste" test to be the best.

Grab a stop watch. Paste a large file from point a to point b and record the time.

All drives are very similar with the result despite their synthetic benchmarks.

This is simply not true. I can tell when I am transferring to the WD Green drive vs when I am transferring to the Seagate 5900 drive. The Seagate is usually 20-40Mbps faster than the WD. This should not be a surprise since the Seagate is years newer than the WD and technology has marched onward, improving the drives over the years.
cybrsage is offline  
post #735 of 853 Old 08-20-2013, 07:47 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
aaronwt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Northern VA(Woodbridge)
Posts: 20,902
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 316 Post(s)
Liked: 609
Wow!! At first I thought I was reading a page from days ago.

39TB unRAID1--53TB unRAID2--36TB unRAID3
LED DLP
XBL/PSN: WormholeXtreme

aaronwt is online now  
post #736 of 853 Old 08-20-2013, 07:54 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 205
assassin is offline  
post #737 of 853 Old 08-20-2013, 08:00 PM
Advanced Member
 
itznfb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_Slayer View Post

It's interesting you feel this way in regards to synthetic benchmarks, but differently about . . .
As seen below
Which was a response to my questioning of power consumption figures as quoted below
When I said "idle pretty low" I don't really know or care what power state they are in. It's good in theory, but in practice (running a windows 8 server) I stick to the windows power management functions. With those options, my results don't jive with the published or "review" numbers. I asked you about "your" numbers since you indicated building several similar systems (out of curiosity, not contempt)
Also, as to this part, I assume that you are talking about 2TB REDs. We are talking 3TB 7200.14 for $90 (or less at multiple occaisions) compared to a 2TB RED for $90. This is the best deal I've seen recently for a 3TB RED http://www.techbargains.com/news_displayItem.cfm/362436

How do manufacturers official specs compare to some nameless blogger who's getting 5 cents a click from one manufacturer or another and who more often than not has their own bias? I'm not even being a smartass with that question I'm honestly just missing your connection.

I've picked up 15 3TB Reds at $89.99 a piece over the last 5~6 months. I pick up 5 every time that shell shocker deal rolls around.

Running Windows Home Server 2011 Evil Abandoned Edition
itznfb is offline  
post #738 of 853 Old 08-21-2013, 04:09 AM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

How do manufacturers official specs compare to some nameless blogger who's getting 5 cents a click from one manufacturer or another and who more often than not has their own bias? I'm not even being a smartass with that question I'm honestly just missing your connection.

I've picked up 15 3TB Reds at $89.99 a piece over the last 5~6 months. I pick up 5 every time that shell shocker deal rolls around.

Manufacturer specs are achieved through synthetic benchmarks and they take the best possible result they can obtain. This means the test is done under the best possible conditions and not real world conditions. These drives are then tested by various review sites which put the drive under many different types of synthetic tests which show far more than the best possible results the manufacturer wants people to think the drive will always do.

The trusted review sites are not bought and controlled by a HDD maker. The HDD maker's own website is, though, so if you REALLY want unbiased information you will NOT get if from the HDD maker itself. The HDD maker is VERY biased towards their own product; I am surprised you did not realize that.


Do we all agree WD Greens transfer large amounts of data much slower than the Seagate 5900s? I have no reds so I cannot speak about them.
cybrsage is offline  
post #739 of 853 Old 08-21-2013, 04:36 AM
Advanced Member
 
itznfb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Manufacturer specs are achieved through synthetic benchmarks and they take the best possible result they can obtain.

Actually no they aren't and no they don't.

Running Windows Home Server 2011 Evil Abandoned Edition
itznfb is offline  
post #740 of 853 Old 08-21-2013, 09:38 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,685
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Liked: 679
Lol.

This thread is comical to me.

Lets just move on. Obviously you favor WD.

Side note: I look all the time and I have never seen RED for $89. I would buy at that price. Please PM if you see it again.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #741 of 853 Old 08-21-2013, 10:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dark_Slayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,315
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

How do manufacturers official specs compare to some nameless blogger who's getting 5 cents a click from one manufacturer or another and who more often than not has their own bias? I'm not even being a smartass with that question I'm honestly just missing your connection.
I don't take manufacturer specs to be reliable. A manufacturer is just as nameless (sometimes even more so) than a blogger, and they are often less transparent with their testing machine, methods, environment, and measuring tools (software and hardware)

I might not be able to find it, but I'm not an idiot. I've gone looking for this stuff and not found it, so if there is some information out there from a manufacturer about how they arrive at their specs then I'd give them more credit. (please PM or post link if you know where such information lives)

Also, the burden of proof on the part of the consumer to "hold them accountable" for those specs seems enormous, so as far as I'm concerned they are untrustworthy.

You might or might not care, but I've asked (not just you) about "actual" users power consumption. I own a kill a watt (arguably not the best method of measuring power - especially small currents) and have used it to test my setup with all the drives mentioned above (4x7200.14, 1xWDBlue1TB, 3x7k4000). The only settings I used were the W8 builtin power management advanced options. I set the min cpu at 0% and "Sleep Hard Disks After" to "NEVER." Before and after was 49W and 62W. Since the difference was so small, I elected to leave my "sleep after" setting to never. When using Plex, a remote openelec machine, or just accessing a network share I noticed the 2-3 second pause when I had set my drives to spin down (I could also hear them spin up). There is never a "spin-up" pause anymore, so I assume my drives are "idling" and my power usage doesn't break 65W.

There is no reason for you or I to trust one another, but I typically trust what users post here more than just about anywhere else. I also "take people at their word" on hardforum, limetech-forums, etc. In some cases I'll ask about their environment and settings if they aren't spelled out, but I take most forum users at their word because they have little reason (or motivation) to give bogus numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

I've picked up 15 3TB Reds at $89.99 a piece over the last 5~6 months. I pick up 5 every time that shell shocker deal rolls around.
I don't own any REDs, but if I had seen them at that price I would have bought them. Please post here next time if you don't mind http://www.avsforum.com/f/201/computers-and-parts-great-found-deals

I check this page everyday http://www.techbargains.com/catsearch.cfm/0_11_0

I also regularly check slickdeals
ETC

I thought I would have seen a deal like that if it happened several times, but I'm always looking to buy a quality drive at $30/TB or less
Dark_Slayer is online now  
post #742 of 853 Old 08-21-2013, 11:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
damelon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Woodbridge, VA
Posts: 1,696
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_Slayer View Post

Please post here next time if you don't mind http://www.avsforum.com/f/201/computers-and-parts-great-found-deals

I check this page everyday http://www.techbargains.com/catsearch.cfm/0_11_0

I also regularly check slickdeals
ETC

I thought I would have seen a deal like that if it happened several times, but I'm always looking to buy a quality drive at $30/TB or less

Agree, I'd buy some 3TB Reds for $90-100 also. I just haven't seen them for that price.
damelon is offline  
post #743 of 853 Old 08-22-2013, 05:46 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,685
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Liked: 679
I was political and nice in my initial reply.

I don't want to offend anyone or call anyone a liar. I just know I look constantly and I've never seen prices under $110 for a 3TB RED; in contrast I've also never spent more that $109 for a 3 TB Seagate.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #744 of 853 Old 08-22-2013, 07:16 AM
Advanced Member
 
itznfb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 58

Running Windows Home Server 2011 Evil Abandoned Edition
itznfb is offline  
post #745 of 853 Old 08-22-2013, 07:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
damelon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Woodbridge, VA
Posts: 1,696
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post


Cry!!! I'm sure i'll keep an eye out Itz, but just in case, I beg of you to PM me if you see that again!
damelon is offline  
post #746 of 853 Old 08-22-2013, 07:46 AM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

Actually no they aren't and no they don't.

Show how they are obtained.
cybrsage is offline  
post #747 of 853 Old 08-22-2013, 07:47 AM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post


At that price they are worth the cost, though still not good for my needs since I need 4TB drives due to limitations on space for the physical drives.
cybrsage is offline  
post #748 of 853 Old 08-22-2013, 08:10 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,685
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Liked: 679
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post


Something funny is up with this ^

There is odd distortion around the numbers.




But no such distortion in the pure white areas.

It's like me posting something like this:




Real^ ????


I hate to be skeptical but I am because I check daily and I have seen 2TB but never 3TB for that price.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #749 of 853 Old 08-22-2013, 08:13 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Something funny is up with this ^

There is odd distortion around the numbers.




But no such distortion in the pure white areas.

It's like me posting something like this:




Real^ ????


I hate to be skeptical but I am because I check daily and I have seen 2TB but never 3TB for that price.

This should be an interesting response from itznfb...
assassin is offline  
post #750 of 853 Old 08-22-2013, 08:31 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,685
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Liked: 679
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

At that price they are worth the cost, though still not good for my needs since I need 4TB drives due to limitations on space for the physical drives.

I think a RED for $89 is a good alternative to a 3TB 7200.14 @ $99 or $109 typical prices. I agree.

But right now the RED is $150.99 on newegg:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822236344


And the Seagate NAS is $154

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822178392

I think the Seagate is clearly the better drive for $4


Even if your a super customer like me biggrin.gif .... You only get discounts down to about $130 each with coupon codes:





That is $30, $40 or even $50 more expensive per HDD than I regularly pay for the excellent 3TB Seagate 7200rpm. I rarely see the RED compete or win on price, and my personal opinion is that it loses on performance and features. If you really care about the warranty, the 5900rpm spindle, the insignificant energy or any of the minor issues then a Seagate 3TB NAS is the same price and superior. It's also available in 4TB for $20 more which is even better IMO. The NAS is a better drive than the RED, and it has the same warranty and application specific benefits / marketing behind it.


Can I ask again... WTF is up with WD sucking these days? How come they don't have any affordable and "good" 4TB drives. Seagates flooded the market with such products, normal, external, and NAS specific 5900RPM 4TB drives at cheap costs per TB. Hitachi 4TB sells for $129 sometimes.

There is a complete and utter empty hole in the market with WD. The flagship all year for consumer segament servers and NAS is the 3TB RED which is highly overated and over priced. It's not worthy of a $30+ Premium IMO over other options- and the lack of a 4TB drive is disappointing. With Storage- bigger is better. Bigger and cheaper per TB will always rank #1 is most consumers.

Is the WD tracking technology on 1TB platters just not up to par with Seagate ? I know Seagate has some major technological features that they employ on 1TB platters that lets them more accurately track and read/write with such a high density platter and that was why they do so well with the 1TB platter 3TB @ 7200rpm, and also why they have so many more 4TB drives that read and write faster than WD RED's.

I am wondering if we are just waiting on more advances from WD before we are going to see something worthwhile. When is the 4TB RED due ? Why has it taken so long ? By that time Seagate going to have 5TB flooding the market.

I really wish WD would stop abandoning the blue line. They lack a good general large capacity drive that sells for affordable prices. Most of the faster 7200rpm stuff is either double the cost and enterprise level- or it's more platters of lower density. The don't have a jack of all trades hard drive that can be used for anything and sells for good pricing per TB.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
Reply Home Theater Computers

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off