or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › Should I just start getting WD reds?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Should I just start getting WD reds? - Page 2

post #31 of 67
Thread Starter 
Cool. Glad you did bring it up actually because I've often wondered about it.
Thanks!!
post #32 of 67
Yeah, desktop, "NAS", 7200, 5400, 5900, the only difference I can tell in my home server is the impact on my wallet smile.gif
post #33 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by StardogChampion View Post

I always find it interesting how anyone can turn their singular experience into "they will always give you a [new/refurbished/larger] one" and "they will never repair".

Singular experience? I've been building and repairing PCs since the early 1980s, as a business since the early 1990s. I've personally sold, designed, built and installed maybe 2,000 machines. How many hard drives failed in warranty? I lost count!

I can't recall getting back anything but refurb drives with a warranty exchange.
post #34 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by StardogChampion View Post

Yeah, desktop, "NAS", 7200, 5400, 5900, the only difference I can tell in my home server is the impact on my wallet smile.gif

It's funny that years later HDD's that often hit the market originally with a high level of marketing BS and hype related to reliability actually often develop a reputation that is slightly suspect on reliability. I've seen this a few times with a few models.

Every HDD study I have ever seen has shown basically the same reliability for most MFG's. Sure each MFG can have a bad design, a bad batch, or just a blemish but in general I find very little difference in the big picture of the reliability from one model to another, or one MFG to another.

I currently own Samsung, Hitachi, Toshiba, WD, and Seagate and from what I can tell owning over 50 HDD's is they are all basically about the same. They certainly are more like than different. I remember when GREEN drives first hit there was some babble about how they are more reliable and would last longer because they spin slower. Well- that turned out to be total BS and if anything they might be less reliable, but probably mostly the same. Certainly not better by any realistic amount. Now the newer "RED" is and has gone the same direction thanks to excellent WD marketing.

The extra year warranty is nice. But I am not sure I would pay much more than $10 or perhaps $15 for it. RED isn't my favorite drive because it's over priced, over marketed, unproven and suspect and the general performance is poor. Saying "it's enough" or pointing out that a Seagate or Toshiba at lower cost and much higher level of performance is not neccessary isn't and never will be a good reason or validation for a purchase decision. I'm calling BS on that. Performance and price in HDD's is always going to be a moving target, performance should increase over time with new tech, and capacity should increase so your cost per TB becomes lower over time too. You need to compare a modern drive against the alternative modern drives selling as competition against it. When you do this objectively the only high point a WD RED has is the BS marketing babble about how it's more reliable. Once you peel back that falsehood and unproven layer there is little else left to like about it IMO. Energy consumption is decent, but hardly worth spending the premium on.

If WD actually published or showed the return or defect rate of RED as compared to GREEN or BLACK or BLUE- then I would listen. But just marketing a drive is more reliable because the label color is now RED is no different than any of the marketing claims over the years. If I was launching a new hard drive I would claim increase reliability every single time. Why not ? Tell me though- have any HDD's today actually gotten more reliable ? They all still seem the same to me. Even the really expensive enterprise level ones.rolleyes.gif
post #35 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Singular experience? I've been building and repairing PCs since the early 1980s, as a business since the early 1990s. I've personally sold, designed, built and installed maybe 2,000 machines. How many hard drives failed in warranty? I lost count!

I can't recall getting back anything but refurb drives with a warranty exchange.

You know, you're right. What am i thinking? Your personal experience is the only one possible. It never happened. Everyone, read the warranty, don't read the warranty, I could really give a rat's a** what you all do.
post #36 of 67
For the record I agree with you StarDog. They are all about the same. There was even a famous study that showed consumer drives to be about the same reliability as the expensive 5 year warranty enterprise drives that are supposed to be more reliable. Hard drive is a hard drive.
post #37 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Singular experience? I've been building and repairing PCs since the early 1980s, as a business since the early 1990s. I've personally sold, designed, built and installed maybe 2,000 machines. How many hard drives failed in warranty? I lost count!

I can't recall getting back anything but refurb drives with a warranty exchange.

I did once, but that was only due to the flooding that wiped out the production facilities. After HDDs started to appear again, one of mine failed and they had no refurbs to replace it with. They had no choice but to send me a brand new one. Other than that anomaly, all others were refurbs, even if DOA. If DOA, I contact Newegg and get a new replacement from them instead.
post #38 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

The extra year warranty is nice. But I am not sure I would pay much more than $10 or perhaps $15 for it. RED isn't my favorite drive because it's over priced, over marketed, unproven and suspect and the general performance is poor. Saying "it's enough" or pointing out that a Seagate or Toshiba at lower cost and much higher level of performance is not neccessary isn't and never will be a good reason or validation for a purchase decision. I'm calling BS on that. Performance and price in HDD's is always going to be a moving target, performance should increase over time with new tech, and capacity should increase so your cost per TB becomes lower over time too. You need to compare a modern drive against the alternative modern drives selling as competition against it. When you do this objectively the only high point a WD RED has is the BS marketing babble about how it's more reliable. Once you peel back that falsehood and unproven layer there is little else left to like about it IMO. Energy consumption is decent, but hardly worth spending the premium on

I know you love to preach performance in every thread where someone mentions a HDD MFusick, but I disagree. First of all, I am one of those people who think "Enough" in the realm of the HTPC forum is a relevant argument. My NAS mostly is used as a WORM (per file) device. When I do read data off of it, it is 99% media playback. In that case, playback only needs to be as fast as so it does not skip or hickup. So 5400/5900/7200/NAS really doesn't matter to me either. If I needed to backup the whole NAS to another realm, then the read speeds would be important during that operation, or if I needed to upgrade a drive and move files from one drive to another, I might care about the performance of my drive a lot due to the volume of data. When I move files to the NAS, write speeds may very between drives, but not by that much, and it never impacts my schedule no matter what the speed is anyway. However things like Heat,Noise,Warranty would be much more important than speed to me, because those things are applicable and important at all times, and not just when I'm doing a very specific operation. My 4TB 7200RPM HGST drives I just picked up are quite louder than all of the other drives I have in my NAS. I can easily tell when those drives are being used when standing in the same room of my NAS. They also run a lot hotter during use than any of my other drives. Though I do agree that in most cases that reliability is pretty close among all brands currently, and cost is almost always the deciding factor. If I had to chose between all brands, performance to me would not be the deciding factor since all drives perform within the specs necessary for me to run a HTPC NAS. For the same cost, I'd take the Cooler, Quieter drive, and if so, the one with the best warranty.
Edited by damelon - 9/26/13 at 7:09am
post #39 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by damelon View Post

I know you love to preach performance in every thread where someone mentions a HDD MFusick, but I disagree. First of all, I am one of those people who think "Enough" in the realm of the HTPC forum is a relevant argument. My NAS mostly is used as a WORM (per file) device. When I do read data off of it, it is 99% media playback. In that case, playback only needs to be as fast as so it does not skip or hickup. So 5400/5900/7200/NAS really doesn't matter to me either. If I needed to backup the whole NAS to another realm, then the read speeds would be important during that operation, or if I needed to upgrade a drive and move files from one drive to another, I might care about the performance of my drive a lot due to the volume of data. When I move files to the NAS, write speeds may very between drives, but not by that much, and it never impacts my schedule no matter what the speed is anyway. However things like Heat,Noise,Warranty would be much more important than speed to me, because those things are applicable and important at all times, and not just when I'm doing a very specific operation. My 4TB 7200RPM HGST drives I just picked up are quite louder than all of the other drives I have in my NAS. I can easily tell when those drives are being used when standing in the same room of my NAS. They also run a lot hotter during use than any of my other drives. Though I do agree that in most cases that reliability is pretty close among all brands currently, and cost is almost always the deciding factor. If I had to chose between all brands, performance to me would not be the deciding factor since all drives perform within the specs necessary for me to run a HTPC NAS. For the same cost, I'd take the Cooler, Quieter drive, and if so, the one with the best warranty.

Bravo! Great post.

(Been preaching this for years)
post #40 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by damelon View Post

My 4TB 7200RPM HGST drives I just picked up are quite louder than all of the other drives I have in my NAS. I can easily tell when those drives are being used when standing in the same room of my NAS. They also run a lot hotter during use than any of my other drives. Though I do agree that in most cases that reliability is pretty close among all brands currently, and cost is almost always the deciding factor. If I had to chose between all brands, performance to me would not be the deciding factor since all drives perform within the specs necessary for me to run a HTPC NAS. For the same cost, I'd take the Cooler, Quieter drive, and if so, the one with the best warranty.

Yeah, I love some HGST 5K3000 drives. Those things kick butt!
post #41 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by spencers View Post

Yeah, I love some HGST 5K3000 drives. Those things kick butt!

The 7K4000 drives were on sale the other day, hence why I decided to try a couple!
post #42 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by damelon View Post

I know you love to preach performance in every thread where someone mentions a HDD MFusick, but I disagree. First of all, I am one of those people who think "Enough" in the realm of the HTPC forum is a relevant argument. My NAS mostly is used as a WORM (per file) device. When I do read data off of it, it is 99% media playback. In that case, playback only needs to be as fast as so it does not skip or hickup. So 5400/5900/7200/NAS really doesn't matter to me either. If I needed to backup the whole NAS to another realm, then the read speeds would be important during that operation, or if I needed to upgrade a drive and move files from one drive to another, I might care about the performance of my drive a lot due to the volume of data. When I move files to the NAS, write speeds may very between drives, but not by that much, and it never impacts my schedule no matter what the speed is anyway. However things like Heat,Noise,Warranty would be much more important than speed to me, because those things are applicable and important at all times, and not just when I'm doing a very specific operation. My 4TB 7200RPM HGST drives I just picked up are quite louder than all of the other drives I have in my NAS. I can easily tell when those drives are being used when standing in the same room of my NAS. They also run a lot hotter during use than any of my other drives. Though I do agree that in most cases that reliability is pretty close among all brands currently, and cost is almost always the deciding factor. If I had to chose between all brands, performance to me would not be the deciding factor since all drives perform within the specs necessary for me to run a HTPC NAS. For the same cost, I'd take the Cooler, Quieter drive, and if so, the one with the best warranty.

I agree with you, but I cannot remember the last time I saw a drive that was quieter and with a long warranty while also being equal to or cheaper in price than the other drives. Admittedly, this is not something I would commit to memory. Right now, we do have the higher performance drive being cheaper while being effectively the same temperature and the same failure rate as the longer warranty drive (a large percentage of the price cheaper). I am sure this will change sooner than later.
post #43 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by StardogChampion View Post

I always find it interesting how anyone can turn their singular experience into "they will always give you a [new/refurbished/larger] one" and "they will never repair".
Seagate flat out says in their warranty "the product you send to Seagate or an authorized service provider will not be returned to you." I think that would be very conclusive that Seagate doesn't repair your drive and return it back to you.

The timeline for drive replacement also doesn't support the idea that drives are repaired and sent back. If the drive gets sent to one location but the replacement comes from anther, that would preclude that it was "repaired". Or if a replacement drive was sent the same day or the next day that the original drive was received. While it could be possible there was a lonely tech just sitting at a bench anxiously awaiting the arrival of your drive so that he could instantly spring into action to repair it and get it back out the door. However if there's one thing a manufacture doesn't like more than having to repair a drive once, it's having to repair a drive twice. Any profit from that drive is gone and it's then costing them money. They are going to retest that drive and certify that it passes it's tests. And that takes more time then what people are going to wait. Same day or next day turn around for all warranty drives just isn't reasonable or able to be expected. It's just not how the warranty business works with such devices.
post #44 of 67
It's good to know that is Seagate's policy. I've bought a lot of Seagate drives lately.

I never figured out how Kingston was going to "repair" an SSD. I was naïve enough to believe I'd get at least a refurb but no such luck. It does make a nice paperweight. Well, not really.
post #45 of 67
The focus on drive speed is a case of the streetlight effect. Measuring throughput is easy. Measuring thermal, noise, & load characteristics is hard. Measuring reliability is extremely hard. This is why the vast majority of hard drive reviews are just freeware benchmarks run on a few drives connected to some random hardware with enough charts & graphs to spread the review across a dozen ad-riddled pages.

As Dameleon points out, we don't care about throughput. Everything relevant to media storage gets covered in that tiny penultimate paragraph on the 12th page labeled "Heat, Noise, & Reliability". Some sites used to take it seriously, but even StorageReview stopped lab testing heat and noise on consumer spindles years ago, and SPCR never reviewed enough drives.

The reliability question is even harder. Even review sites that sink real effort into answering it don't succeed. StorageReview's Reliability Database demonstrated that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data". A consistent test environment is crucial. Hardware.fr has been publishing retail return rates for specific drives models, but they only cover the first year and they only have sample sizes of hundreds to a few thousand units...which is too small and too indirect of a proxy to distill failure rates from.

The best data is still the CMU study and Google study, each measuring the failures of over 100,000 drives . The biggest surprise was that there was no "bathtub curve" effect for HDD failures like there is with other hardware. The Annualized Failure Rate (AFR) starts out low (~1-2%) in the first year and keeps climbing from there. When the warranty expires, it's already between 5% and 10%. There is no "flat of the tub" grace period. The other big surprise was that failure rate didn't correlate with load; it didn't matter if the drive was in constant use or mostly idle or mostly spun down.

The question that we're trying to answer is "What are the 3rd and 4th year failure rates?" During that still-in-service-but-out-of-warranty period, when we have to eat the cost of the failed drive, is it 5% or 10%? It really matters once you start talking about multiple drives. If you calculate the chance of at least one drive failing in an n-drive array, this is what it looks like:
Code:
Chance of one or more failures
 over time in an n-drive array 

Above-average reliability
  |      Year & AFR       |
n |Y1 1%|Y2 3%|Y3 5%|Y4 7%|
--+-----+-----+-----+-----+
1 |  1% |  4% |  9% | 15% |
2 |  2% |  8% | 17% | 28% |
3 |  3% | 11% | 24% | 39% |
4 |  4% | 15% | 31% | 48% |
5 |  5% | 18% | 37% | 56% |
6 |  6% | 22% | 42% | 63% |
7 |  7% | 25% | 47% | 68% |
8 |  8% | 28% | 52% | 73% |

Below-average reliability
  |      Year & AFR       |
n |Y1 2%|Y2 5%|Y3 8%|Y4 11%|
--+-----+-----+-----+------+
1 |  2% |  7% | 14% | 24%  |
2 |  4% | 13% | 27% | 42%  |
3 |  6% | 19% | 37% | 56%  |
4 |  8% | 25% | 46% | 66%  |
5 | 10% | 30% | 54% | 74%  |
6 | 11% | 35% | 61% | 80%  |
7 | 13% | 39% | 66% | 85%  |
8 | 15% | 44% | 71% | 89%  |

Running multi-drive arrays for a few years magnifies a tiny difference between two models, up to a point. Beyond about 8 disks, having failures is unavoidable, and makes sense to stock up on spares in advance (like light bulbs), but the typical SOHO NAS/media server isn't quite that big, and can still really benefit from using the more reliable drives.

Getting the details on those failure curves is tricky. Manufacturers only give two data points: MTBF & warranty length, which aren't enough to extrapolate from. Even with CMU & Google, by the time they collected and analyzed the data, the drives they studied were end-of-life, and the data somewhat useless as a shopping aid. The best source I know of is the warranty underwriters, who actually get to peek behind the manufacturers curtains and see the raw failure data, and they have to wager their own money on predicting the reliability of the drives currently for sale.

tl;dr: A small difference in reliability multiplied by several drives and several years becomes meaningful. The WD Reds are probably worth it.
post #46 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricN View Post

As Dameleon points out, we don't care about throughput.

We do care about throughput. When you buy that new 4TB drive and you transfer 2TB worth of data off an old drive onto it, throughput suddenly becomes very important.
post #47 of 67
I've not replied because I am away on business. Sorry.

It's not a matter of hard drive performance as much as value. Every time I see someone defending the crappier WD drives as "being enough" it's mainly a personal bias preference or personal purchase decision justification.

Everyone fails to realize that the faster better drive also costs less. "Cheaper" is the more important part, not "performance".

Performance comes at a lower price. Not a premium. I would not pay extra for the higher performance , but even more than that I would not pay more for less performance.

So unless the WD drives are cheaper I can't recommend them. I almost never see them cheaper. They are not worth a considerable premium IMO, they are not clearly superior at anything.
post #48 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

We do care about throughput. When you buy that new 4TB drive and you transfer 2TB worth of data off an old drive onto it, throughput suddenly becomes very important.

I agree but it's mainly only an issue with the 5400rpm WD drives since they are quite a bit slower than 5900rpm cheaper Seagates and especially 7200rpm Toshiba / Hitachi/ Seagates.

If low power is a concern I tend to favor 5900 RPM over 5400RPM as it seems a better blend of performance and power. The benefits of 5400rpm are not obvious, or worth the trade offs IMO. Also they certainly not worth paying extra $.

If the 5400rpm drives were cheaper I'd probably change my tune. But paying more for them makes little sense. Saying they are "enough" on performance doesn't negate the fact they are usually a bad deal.
post #49 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I agree but it's mainly only an issue with the 5400rpm WD drives since they are quite a bit slower than 5900rpm cheaper Seagates and especially 7200rpm Toshiba / Hitachi/ Seagates.

If low power is a concern I tend to favor 5900 RPM over 5400RPM as it seems a better blend of performance and power. The benefits of 5400rpm are not obvious, or worth the trade offs IMO. Also they certainly not worth paying extra $.

If the 5400rpm drives were cheaper I'd probably change my tune. But paying more for them makes little sense. Saying they are "enough" on performance doesn't negate the fact they are usually a bad deal.

I agree i usually buy what ever drives are cheaper and right now the seagate can "usually" be found for cheaper. I however probably won't buy the toshiba because of them running a little hotter, and eventually i will have 48 drives in one server and the less heat the better.
post #50 of 67
Yes I also tried the Toshiba (made in same WD plant that makes WD drives) and found its slightly higher in heat and energy compared to Seagate 7200.14.
post #51 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

We do care about throughput. When you buy that new 4TB drive and you transfer 2TB worth of data off an old drive onto it, throughput suddenly becomes very important.

2TB / 150MBps = 3.88 hours
2TB / 180MBps = 3.24 hours

Either way, I'm going to walk away and do something else for several hours. The difference in elapsed time is not important.

With a modern 4TB drive, it takes seven hours to read the whole drive. Throughput has stagnated so much that tape drives are now faster than these things. We're at the point where it makes more sense to treat them like a tape cartridge than a hard drive, which is why parity-based raid with them keeps getting sillier and sillier. A 4TB drive would need a throughput of 1GBps to have the same ratio that bulk-storage consumer drives had a decade ago. What made sense back then just doesn't anymore.
post #52 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricN View Post

2TB / 150MBps = 3.88 hours
2TB / 180MBps = 3.24 hours

Either way, I'm going to walk away and do something else for several hours. The difference in elapsed time is not important.

With a modern 4TB drive, it takes seven hours to read the whole drive. Throughput has stagnated so much that tape drives are now faster than these things. We're at the point where it makes more sense to treat them like a tape cartridge than a hard drive, which is why parity-based raid with them keeps getting sillier and sillier. A 4TB drive would need a throughput of 1GBps to have the same ratio that bulk-storage consumer drives had a decade ago. What made sense back then just doesn't anymore.

You are suggesting that a 5400rpm WD drive will sustain 150MB/sec (different than mbps btw wink.gif ) right ? Because if you are then you are wrong.

RED and GREEN 5400RPM drive in general do only about 110MB/sec and can fall below 60MB/sec in worst case scenarios (like slow part of the platters) so the difference is more like 50MB/sec+ not 30MB/sec you use in your example.

We can re-do the math with the results from independent hard drive review benchmarks if needed (Like TomsHardware, AnandTech or StorageReview).

Without me digging that up let me just use 80MB/sec :

2TB = 2097152MB -> 2097152MB divided by 80 = 26214 seconds, or 436 minutes or 7.2 hours.
doing the same but with 160MB/sec,
2TB = 2097152MB -> 2097152MB divided by 160 = 13107 or 218 minutes or 3.6 hours.

Now that is a big difference- and a difference you can appreciate when running something like Unraid, or Flexraid or SnapRaid or anything that might need to do some type of parity calculations because the entire process is done much faster. Think about this- if a WD GREEN or RED 5400RPM 2TB or 3TB drive uses .5 watts less of energy - but runs for nearly twice as long in a parity update calculation because it's slower which is actually more efficient ?

Build two identical servers- with the difference being only the 7200rpm drives or 5400rpm drives. Put a stop watch and a kill-a-watt energy meter on the process and do a total parity update. When it is over figure out the power used by the time spent and tell me which set up actually used more watts of power to do the same thing. ???

5400rpm drives read about 110MB sec; they can not go 150MB/sec consistently and the chances that they will drop below 80MB sec is much higher than the chance they can stay over 130MB/sec. 55MB/sec is the lower end actually for the 2TB drives and 60MB/sec is the low end for the 3TB drives.

Your example and point would be better taken as a defense of 5400rpm drives if 5400rpm drives could actually go that fast.
post #53 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

You are suggesting that a 5400rpm WD drive will sustain 150MB/sec (different than mbps btw wink.gif ) right ? Because if you are then you are wrong.

RED and GREEN 5400RPM drive in general do only about 110MB/sec and can fall below 60MB/sec in worst case scenarios (like slow part of the platters) so the difference is more like 50MB/sec+ not 30MB/sec you use in your example.

We can re-do the math with the results from independent hard drive review benchmarks if needed (Like TomsHardware, AnandTech or StorageReview).

Without me digging that up let me just use 80MB/sec :

2TB = 2097152MB -> 2097152MB divided by 80 = 26214 seconds, or 436 minutes or 7.2 hours.
doing the same but with 160MB/sec,
2TB = 2097152MB -> 2097152MB divided by 160 = 13107 or 218 minutes or 3.6 hours.

Now that is a big difference- and a difference you can appreciate when running something like Unraid, or Flexraid or SnapRaid or anything that might need to do some type of parity calculations because the entire process is done much faster. Think about this- if a WD GREEN or RED 5400RPM 2TB or 3TB drive uses .5 watts less of energy - but runs for nearly twice as long in a parity update calculation because it's slower which is actually more efficient ?

Build two identical servers- with the difference being only the 7200rpm drives or 5400rpm drives. Put a stop watch and a kill-a-watt energy meter on the process and do a total parity update. When it is over figure out the power used by the time spent and tell me which set up actually used more watts of power to do the same thing. ???

5400rpm drives read about 110MB sec; they can not go 150MB/sec consistently and the chances that they will drop below 80MB sec is much higher than the chance they can stay over 130MB/sec. 55MB/sec is the lower end actually for the 2TB drives and 60MB/sec is the low end for the 3TB drives.

Your example and point would be better taken as a defense of 5400rpm drives if 5400rpm drives could actually go that fast.

I run my parity/update at 2AM. Please tell me why I should care about how long it takes?
post #54 of 67
Well how about an Unraid user waiting to finish PRE CLEAR a drive so they can add it ?? That is going to take a full day faster ... eek.gif

My point was not how long it takes- but that if it takes twice as as long with a 5400rpm drive versus a 7200rpm drive doesn't that negate some of the reasons why you might choose a 5400rpm drive (low energy) in the first place ??

The main point is that it's not worth spending more on a 5400rpm drive. It might be worth spending less and suffering the longer time it takes to do a copy or parity update depending on how sensitive you are to performance. I think for a lower total cost there can be some argument around 5400rpm and it's benefits; but when 5400rpm costs more (like almost always from what I see ) there should be little argument for paying more for it. Paying more for worse performance seems silly to me and the myth or marketing claims that they are more reliable or will last longer is unproven, unsubstantiated, and unlikely to be proven true. Save your cash, or purchase a 5 year replacement plan if you have reliability anxiety disorder.

Going back to my original point:

Saying "it is enough" as justification for a WD 5400rpm drive purchase when better faster hard drives are available at lower prices is not adequate justification to me. It might show it can function ok for the intended purpose, but it does not promote, justify or suggest a 5400rpm purchase decision. It's long been a pet peeve of mine that the "it is enough" argument is used ad nauseum but the fact that 5400rpm almost always cost more is consistently omitted. I can't help but think this is because the "it is enough" argument is being used to defend a personal bias or previous personal purchase decision and not at all directed towards offering good advice for others.

OP- don't spend more on RED drives because WD markets the color of the label to be more reliable. There is very likely little difference from WD GREEN (basically the same) or any other options in matter of reliability. Save your cash and buy the drives that are friendly to your wallet (and probably will perform better)
post #55 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Well how about an Unraid user waiting to finish PRE CLEAR a drive so they can add it ?? That is going to take a full day faster ... eek.gif

My point was not how long it takes- but that if it takes twice as as long with a 5400rpm drive versus a 7200rpm drive doesn't that negate some of the reasons why you might choose a 5400rpm drive (low energy) in the first place ??

The main point is that it's not worth spending more on a 5400rpm drive. It might be worth spending less and suffering the longer time it takes to do a copy or parity update depending on how sensitive you are to performance. I think for a lower total cost there can be some argument around 5400rpm and it's benefits; but when 5400rpm costs more (like almost always from what I see ) there should be little argument for paying more for it. Paying more for worse performance seems silly to me and the myth or marketing claims that they are more reliable or will last longer is unproven, unsubstantiated, and unlikely to be proven true. Save your cash, or purchase a 5 year replacement plan if you have reliability anxiety disorder.

Going back to my original point:

Saying "it is enough" as justification for a WD 5400rpm drive purchase when better faster hard drives are available at lower prices is not adequate justification to me. It might show it can function ok for the intended purpose, but it does not promote, justify or suggest a 5400rpm purchase decision. It's long been a pet peeve of mine that the "it is enough" argument is used ad nauseum but the fact that 5400rpm almost always cost more is consistently omitted. I can't help but think this is because the "it is enough" argument is being used to defend a personal bias or previous personal purchase decision and not at all directed towards offering good advice for others.

OP- don't spend more on RED drives because WD markets the color of the label to be more reliable. There is very likely little difference from WD GREEN (basically the same) or any other options in matter of reliability. Save your cash and buy the drives that are friendly to your wallet (and probably will perform better)

Again, who cares? That is one day out of many hundred days that you are going to have your server.

I just don't get it. I am not advocating buying a more expensive (but admittedly slower) drive. What I am saying is that there is almost zero reason to discard a perfectly good functioning Green drive that you already own. You continually bash Green drives without realizing that there are many many many many people on AVS and elsewhere that use Green drives (without any issues including playback I might add) and wouldn't notice a REAL WORLD difference no matter what type of drive they used.

Buy the cheapest drive. If its Green then so be it (it usually isn't). If its Red so be it. If its a 7200RPM but quiet drive then so be it.

I don't know what this is so hard or why you just can't leave it alone.
post #56 of 67
When you say it like that I have no problem leaving it alone. It's accurate and makes sense, and nothing you have said has falsely exaggerated 5400rpm drives so I have no issues at all biggrin.gif (shuts door... and ... walking away.... )

Case closed.
post #57 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

OP- don't spend more on RED drives because WD markets the color of the label to be more reliable. There is very likely little difference from WD GREEN (basically the same) or any other options in matter of reliability

Red (WD40EFRX) has a 3 year warranty; Green (WD40EZRX) has a 2 year warranty. This is not done for shits and giggles. Also, that "little difference" in reliability becomes much bigger when you look at 6 drives x 4 years.
post #58 of 67
But what is the cost of a 4TB seagate (139$ costco external and $159 internal online) ???

Is that cheaper than a 4TB RED ?

Because I would take the Seagate over the RED at basically the same price. So if it's $50 cheaper it's a no brainer. A few have recently bought the Hitachi model 4TB for $129 ....

Simply put the RED is not worth the $70 premium it could command.
post #59 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I disagree. WD is overated these days. Perfectly fine, but merely on par. They are not "superior" like many of the oldschool die hards pretend. I believe they (WD) are losing ground quicker than they are advancing in the big picture of things. Seems like Toshiba (made in the same WD plant) Seagate and Hitachi have some better alternatives these days, and also better prices.

The idea "RED" is superior in reliability is purely a figment of intelligent marketing at WD marketing department. It's a hard drive. Just like the others.
7200rpm Seagate or Hitachi probably because WD does not make any "good" consumer 7200rpm drives these days.
...
I tend to swear by WD Black drives. They have performed for me better than any other drive I have ever owned including having an absolute reliability track record thus far (touching on wood).
post #60 of 67
Black drives are not favorable on price, or energy consumption. The performance is also bested easily with modern Seagates (which cost less and use less power)

They do have some good performance on random IOPS but that's more an OS thing these days, so for data it's not worth the extra. The Black was originally good for OS installs, but SSD has made them obsolete. The warranty is good on those drives (better than most anyways). I have seen some data at behardware.com that suggest Blacks were less reliable (basically the same) also.

Just goes to show you that a single experience is not indicative of the total cumulative experience of everyone. A hard drive is really just a hard drive IMO. I only get excited when they are really good for really cheap. The entire suggestion some people make that they claim they can predict reliability experience at the end user level is just silly. Spending more on a RED for instance, really means nothing. It does not mean your drives will be more reliable than the other 20 models you might have bought instead. It just means the RED label has some good marketing behind it. At the same price or lower I would tend to think the RED drives are a good option and a good deal, but there is nothing there to substantiate a serious price premium.

1 more year warranty is worth $5~$15 to most people. Only someone with HDD Failure Anxiety (you can take meds for this) would consider paying anymore for a year warranty and some marketing. The same goes with Seagate NAS over Seagate. $20+ is just too much extra to justify spending the extra. If you had a NAS box and really wanted NAS specific drives - there is nothing wrong with doing that. But I don't understand the crossover of the "NAS" specific drives into the server and HTPC builds. A server running something like Flexraid or Unraid is not much different how it uses a HDD as any other PC or HTPC. There is no reason to buy a "NAS" drive at a premium. I don't get the stretch people make from how a "RED" drive is more reliable in a server or HTPC (like the title of this thread suggests)

(btw not directed exclusively at spectrum, but more in general just voice some opinion)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Home Theater Computers
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › Should I just start getting WD reds?