or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › Western Digital Red or Green?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Western Digital Red or Green?

post #1 of 31
Thread Starter 
Hi,

What's people's experience about these? I saw about reds this week and not sure if they are good. I did some research and it seems like there are a lot of negative reviews, i.e. on newegg. I am using 2tb WD greens in my drobo for 2-3 years and they never failed AFAIK. Not sure what reds are promising but which one do you guys prefer and what's your experience with them?




Thanks smile.gif
post #2 of 31
Oh boy. Here we go again! smile.gif

Cliff notes: Very controversial and often full of fanboy-ism. Many threads on this subject here at AVS.

My take home opinion based on experience: Buy whatever is the cheapest per GB regardless of manufacturer. Lately that has been Seagate.
post #3 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

Oh boy. Here we go again! smile.gif

Cliff notes: Very controversial and often full of fanboy-ism. Many threads on this subject here at AVS.

My take home opinion based on experience: Buy whatever is the cheapest per GB regardless of manufacturer. Lately that has been Seagate.

+1. There's already more than enough info on these type drives in other threads.
post #4 of 31
I prefer the WD Reds and Seagate NAS over any other drive due to the better warranty and hardware RAID support. I prefer the WD Reds over the Seagate NAS as they run significantly cooler and use a lot less power. Both drives though are essentially enterprise drives that run cooler at half the cost.

The Greens run cool and use almost the same power as the Reds though. So if you're just using them for a NAS with software RAID like the Drobo or just using some type of software RAID in your OS then the Greens will serve you just as well.
post #5 of 31
Thread Starter 
Thanks alot guys. I didn't know Seagates were cheaper. I always used seagate before I bought my last 5 HDDs from WD 2tb Greens. Not sure if it's because the WDs are inside drobo, but only 1 had issue before, though not sure why that happened either. But I remember seagate drives having issues for me like disappearing and having to do scandisk which would corrupt delete some movie files.

Thanks again and I will be searching the older threads about this too.
post #6 of 31
Never buy these drives at MSRP or even close to MSRP either. They constantly show up on TechBargains.com and NewEgg sales including ShellShockers at least 2-3 times a month.
post #7 of 31
Thread Starter 
Thanks, where can I find deals like redflagdeals? TechBargains is for listing these kind of deals? I don't really visit newegg too often other than when I need to check a price so haven't come across a deal.
post #8 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

I prefer the WD Reds and Seagate NAS over any other drive due to the better warranty and hardware RAID support. I prefer the WD Reds over the Seagate NAS as they run significantly cooler and use a lot less power. Both drives though are essentially enterprise drives that run cooler at half the cost.

The Greens run cool and use almost the same power as the Reds though. So if you're just using them for a NAS with software RAID like the Drobo or just using some type of software RAID in your OS then the Greens will serve you just as well.

I don't know about the WD Greens or temps but AnandTech recently did a faceoff of 4TB drives and the power usage between the WD Red and Seagate NAS drives were less than 2W difference across the board. http://www.anandtech.com/show/7258/battle-of-the-4-tb-nas-drives-wd-red-and-seagate-nas-hdd-faceoff/5
post #9 of 31
I'd buy whatever drive is cheapest per TB. The WD are 5400rpm, and the Seagates are 5900rpm so that matters to some. Personally I favor the faster HDD's (7200rpm) if all other factors are nearly equal, but usually price of the HDD is the most heavily weighted and I am cheap !!!

Costco sells the Seagate 3TB for $99 (no rebate) and $139 for the 4TB [both external usb units]. I've used both many times with good luck and the price and availability is right. Tigerdirect had some good sales recently too. I like slickdeals.net for HDD and PC component news. If you have the app for your phone it can alert you where the deals are or when they pop up.

If you really want to do some reading on the differences give this thread a read: (no need to do it all again here tongue.gif )

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1460910/wd-red-vs-wd-green-vs-seagate-3tb-hard-drive-speeds

There is plenty of talk about hard drive differences between brand and models and plenty of talk about sale prices. Lots of bickering too. biggrin.gif

I vote with my wallet, and I don't like paying extra for nothing. A hard drive is a hard drive, they are all basically the same.
post #10 of 31
Thread Starter 
Thanks I am gonna check those sites right now. Futureshop bestbuy here charges a lot for HDDs. Also one article I just read posted in this thread where it compares the power usage. But it seems to be 1W of difference. I am not an electrical engineer but does 1W per HDD really make a difference in bills? I am not sure but it must be I guess, right?

Btw do you guys think it's better to buy say 10x 4tb or 15x 3tb? The price ends up the same so it's 40tb vs 45tb but you know the latter takes 5 more extra drive space. Do you guys sell your older HDDs for say 80% of their cost? Because IMO it feels better to be able to combine them into fewer drives so you can still use your 24 drive setup as long as possible.
post #11 of 31
No, 1W doesn't matter.

I would much prefer 10x4TB over 15x3TB for standard storage and playback but this is a personal preference.
post #12 of 31
The biggest problem with buying the smaller drive is when you need to replace it to increase storage space. If you buy that 4TB drive now it will cost more, but if you need to replace the 3TB drive with a 4TB drive that extra 1TB space will cost you a LOT. I just replaced all my 1TB and 2TB drives with 4TB drives. My 3TB drives will sit there until I absolutely must replace them and then it will most likely be with 5TB or 6TB drives at that point. Replacing them with 4TB drives is just too expensive for the small gain. Luckily, I still have 1 spare slot on my HTPC for another 4TB HDD.
post #13 of 31
You are right and I agree 100%^

But,

I'm planning on replacing 3TB with 6TB (not 4) eventually biggrin.gif
post #14 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by rclifton View Post

I don't know about the WD Greens or temps but AnandTech recently did a faceoff of 4TB drives and the power usage between the WD Red and Seagate NAS drives were less than 2W difference across the board. http://www.anandtech.com/show/7258/battle-of-the-4-tb-nas-drives-wd-red-and-seagate-nas-hdd-faceoff/5

I don't have time to re-read their article but just glancing at it I'm not sure where they got their numbers. 18W for a drive in idle? No consumer HDD uses that much energy. Not even close. It looks like they were using some software measurement that was way off. Those numbers are actually mind blowingly inaccurate and I'm surprised they are still published. I've tested these drives with a multimeter and both Seagate NAS and WD Reds align with their mfg specifications. The Reds at peak usage use about 4W while the Seagate NAS use about 8W. At idle time with no spindown the Reds are capable of using less than 1W while the Seagate NAS are still using 8W. If they uses standard spindown then the Reds sit around 2~3W where the Seagate NAS are around 4W.

If you're using just a few drives then it most likely doesn't matter much. But if you have a large array/pool and especially if you don't spindown it becomes a bigger concern. Do you want 30 drives idling at 8W or 30 drives idling at ~1W. I leave my drives spinning all the time since it causes less wear and tear on the mechanical parts and then I'm never waiting on spinup either. Another reason I use only Reds in my home servers.
post #15 of 31
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

I don't have time to re-read their article but just glancing at it I'm not sure where they got their numbers. 18W for a drive in idle? No consumer HDD uses that much energy. Not even close. It looks like they were using some software measurement that was way off. Those numbers are actually mind blowingly inaccurate and I'm surprised they are still published. I've tested these drives with a multimeter and both Seagate NAS and WD Reds align with their mfg specifications. The Reds at peak usage use about 4W while the Seagate NAS use about 8W. At idle time with no spindown the Reds are capable of using less than 1W while the Seagate NAS are still using 8W. If they uses standard spindown then the Reds sit around 2~3W where the Seagate NAS are around 4W.

If you're using just a few drives then it most likely doesn't matter much. But if you have a large array/pool and especially if you don't spindown it becomes a bigger concern. Do you want 30 drives idling at 8W or 30 drives idling at ~1W. I leave my drives spinning all the time since it causes less wear and tear on the mechanical parts and then I'm never waiting on spinup either. Another reason I use only Reds in my home servers.

Would it cost alot of money in electricity if you leave the HDDs running instead of turning them off instead of spindown say for 24 drives?

I didn't know they wear down more when they were turned off instead of running 24/7.

Also did you ever try WD Greens for your measurements? I might get some red then.
post #16 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

I leave my drives spinning all the time since it causes less wear and tear on the mechanical parts and then I'm never waiting on spinup either. Another reason I use only Reds in my home servers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent2k6 View Post

I didn't know they wear down more when they were turned off instead of running 24/7.

Is this actually true? We have had this debate before and I would rather not have it again but if there is new data out there that supports it I would be interested in seeing it as I am not sure of the answer.

I see both arguments for this approach but have never seen any real data or testing to back it up. Honestly I think this is one of those theories or myths that both sides suggest as being "common sense" with no objective evidence to support either approach.
post #17 of 31
There is no data either way. It does not seem to make much difference either way from everything I have ever seen on the subject.
Spin down or leave spinning- both seem fine. I would not worry about that. Lots of other reasons why HDD's fail, so it's not likely to matter much.

Also,

Power consumption was not 18 watts. Who would believe that ? It was for the array, not the single drive in idle mode rolleyes.gif

RED drives and GREEN drives do about 4-5 watts each HDD. About the same as Hitachi 5400rpm and Seagate NAS or 5900rpm drives. A watt of power is nothing. It means nothing. Unless one HDD is half or double the power consumption of another it's not likely to matter much at all in a typical consumer set up (less than 20 HDD's)

1 watt x 24 hours a day = 24 watts x 365 days = 8760 watts. That is 8.7 kWh's. 8.7 x .08 cents per kWh = $.70 cents a year. If a hard drive is $5 cheaper than another but uses 1 watt more, it's very likely that you might not recoup the extra $5 you paid for the lower power consumption HDD before the HDD fails or the warranty runs out. Chasing power consumption is good to break a tie between two HDD's if that is what is important to you, but it's not worth spending more money on IMO. It's basically the same story on performance, it's good to break a tie on two same priced drives if that is important to you, but not worth spending tons more on generally speaking.

Hard drive is a hard drive.

The idea that RED drives or "NAS" drives will last longer is pure marketing aimed to get you to open your wallet. A GREEN WD or a normal Seagate is likely to delivery the same life expectancy and performance. The review that took apart the RED and GREEN basically found no difference between them except for firmware differences. (RED has TLER and Head parking disabled for RAID support)

In a normal server or desktop environment they are basically the same thing. The extra warranty on the NAS or the RED might be worth a little extra, but it's each individual's choice how much that is worth. To me one more year warranty is not worth $20+ but might be worth only $10. Others might disagree. I've seen some pay $35+ for the RED for no apparent reason, so while I personally disagree with that I guess it makes sense to some. Careful about marketing, HDD makers have been claiming higher reliability and all sorts of claims for 20 years and I have not see any change in reliability. If anything warranty times have gotten shorter (they used to be all 5 years).

If I save $20 each HDD and buy 5 drives, That is $100. I can likely buy a new HDD that is double the size with that money in the future. I prefer to keep the $ in my pocket until someone proved to me superior performance or reliability worth the premium.
post #18 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post


Is this actually true? We have had this debate before and I would rather not have it again but if there is new data out there that supports it I would be interested in seeing it as I am not sure of the answer.

I see both arguments for this approach but have never seen any real data or testing to back it up. Honestly I think this is one of those theories or myths that both sides suggest as being "common sense" with no objective evidence to support either approach.

when it comes to automotive engines this is true, it is better to leave a car running than cold start it, and since both are spinning mechanical pieces they do share common traits, how ever there are points of diminishing return. if it spends more time off than on than i could see it making sense to turn it off when not in use, and assassin i agree'd with you spot on above when you said buy what ever is cheaper per GB.
post #19 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent2k6 View Post

Would it cost alot of money in electricity if you leave the HDDs running instead of turning them off instead of spindown say for 24 drives?

I didn't know they wear down more when they were turned off instead of running 24/7.

Also did you ever try WD Greens for your measurements? I might get some red then.

Green's have a negligible difference from Reds. They both use intellispeed which means they can idle with very low power usage and keep spinning as to keep their temperature fluctuations and hard starts to a minimum. This is something Seagates cannot do. This is why the WD Reds and Greens can idle at > 1W while the Seagates need 4W to do the same. If your drives spend the majority of their life idling that's 24W vs 96W. So a little over 1 light bulb worth of electricity. Depending on your rates that could be significant over a year but it's most likely not. Since I do use my servers at least once a day usually more the added benefits of the Reds are why I choose them. I buy them on sale so I'm not spending anything additional on them.

Also..... SmartMeters will probably be a Federal requirement soon so you'll want to lower your power consumption as much as possible so you don't go over your Federal daily allowance! biggrin.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post


Is this actually true? We have had this debate before and I would rather not have it again but if there is new data out there that supports it I would be interested in seeing it as I am not sure of the answer.

I see both arguments for this approach but have never seen any real data or testing to back it up. Honestly I think this is one of those theories or myths that both sides suggest as being "common sense" with no objective evidence to support either approach.

This was never a question in my opinion. I can't recall on forums or in my professional career anyone ever saying otherwise. Temperature fluctuations, head parking and hard starts all decrease the lifespan of a drive as well as increase the chance of silent corruption. The only thing I've seen debated is which mfg has a higher failure rate. I've always said they were probably dead even but someone posted warranty data from an independent source in the "other thread" showing the failure rates for Seagates over the years has been significantly higher. That being said Seagate has made a lot of improvements over the last couple years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

There is no data either way. It does not seem to make much difference either way from everything I have ever seen on the subject.
Spin down or leave spinning- both seem fine. I would not worry about that. Lots of other reasons why HDD's fail, so it's not likely to matter much.

Also,

Power consumption was not 18 watts. Who would believe that ? It was for the array, not the single drive in idle mode rolleyes.gif

RED drives and GREEN drives do about 4-5 watts each HDD. About the same as Hitachi 5400rpm and Seagate NAS or 5900rpm drives. A watt of power is nothing. It means nothing. Unless one HDD is half or double the power consumption of another it's not likely to matter much at all in a typical consumer set up (less than 20 HDD's)

1 watt x 24 hours a day = 24 watts x 365 days = 8760 watts. That is 8.7 kWh's. 8.7 x .08 cents per kWh = $.70 cents a year. If a hard drive is $5 cheaper than another but uses 1 watt more, it's very likely that you might not recoup the extra $5 you paid for the lower power consumption HDD before the HDD fails or the warranty runs out. Chasing power consumption is good to break a tie between two HDD's if that is what is important to you, but it's not worth spending more money on IMO. It's basically the same story on performance, it's good to break a tie on two same priced drives if that is important to you, but not worth spending tons more on generally speaking.

Hard drive is a hard drive.

The idea that RED drives or "NAS" drives will last longer is pure marketing aimed to get you to open your wallet. A GREEN WD or a normal Seagate is likely to delivery the same life expectancy and performance. The review that took apart the RED and GREEN basically found no difference between them except for firmware differences. (RED has TLER and Head parking disabled for RAID support)

In a normal server or desktop environment they are basically the same thing. The extra warranty on the NAS or the RED might be worth a little extra, but it's each individual's choice how much that is worth. To me one more year warranty is not worth $20+ but might be worth only $10. Others might disagree. I've seen some pay $35+ for the RED for no apparent reason, so while I personally disagree with that I guess it makes sense to some. Careful about marketing, HDD makers have been claiming higher reliability and all sorts of claims for 20 years and I have not see any change in reliability. If anything warranty times have gotten shorter (they used to be all 5 years).

If I save $20 each HDD and buy 5 drives, That is $100. I can likely buy a new HDD that is double the size with that money in the future. I prefer to keep the $ in my pocket until someone proved to me superior performance or reliability worth the premium.

Ignore everything Mfusick says on this topic. Sorry bro but you're literally one of the most fanboyish people on the internet on this topic. You constantly say your baffled at the technological differences between the Seagate NAS and the normal Seagate and then turn right around and say there are no differences between the Reds and Greens and that it's all marketing. rolleyes.gif
post #20 of 31
You are much more fanboy towards WD than I am towards any other MFG ^

Pot meet kettle.

And your Seagate NAS power specs are off, and you clearly always try to show RED in the positive light because you choose them personally. Hardly objective.

Hard drive is a hard drive. I'm a lot more passionate about a RED not being worth a $30 premium than I am at any drive being better than another.

Toshiba , Seagate , Hitachi or whomever ... $30 less for a faster HDD I will sign up for that every time over the slower and overpriced RED.

We can just disagree ok ?
post #21 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

You are much more fanboy towards WD than I am towards any other MFG ^

Pot meet kettle.

And your Seagate NAS power specs are off, and you clearly always try to show RED is positive light because you choose them personally. Hardly objective.

Hard drive is a hard drive. I'm a lot more passionate about a RED not being worth a $30 premium than I am at any drive being better than another.

Toshiba , Seagate , Hitachi or whomever ... $30 less for a faster HDD I will sign up for that every time over the slower and overpriced RED.

We can just disagree ok ?

I choose Reds because they meet a functional requirement that Seagate drives cannot. So it's completely objective and not for any personal reason. I have no brand allegiance and when Seagate produces drives that can spin at less than 1W I'll be adding those to my personal server as well. And my power specs are only off if the mfg's own documentation is wrong and my multimeter is also wrong by the same amount. That would be quite a coincidence. When I test power specs physically with a tool designed for the job and those readings match what the manufacturer has written in documentation then I'm going to believe those numbers over some sponsored review done with free, inaccurate software any day.

To expand on Assassin's question though... there is a reason LSI has removed the ability to spindown drives from all of their firmware and Dell is following their lead. Adaptec has also started to remove these features as well as my latest Areca update also had spindown features removed.
post #22 of 31
I don't spin down my drives (except parity on Mobo ports ).

We can agree on that at least biggrin.gif

I really don't give two craps about power consumption in general though. If it costs me $10 a year extra to run a server how I want and enjoy the extra performance I appreciate then its well worth me choosing faster 7200 rpm drives, even if they take more power, or me not spinning down my drives.

Spinning down your drives sucks because when I click on my pool or server drive there is a delay while I wait for the drives to spool up. That's annoying to wait every single time I try to access my pool. It's well worth $10 of electricity to make sure that never happens.

I don't really care about the reliability question of spin down vs not. I guess I think it about the same either way. I just prefer not spinning down. Spinning down has an entirely other set of problems it can introduce , and it stresses power required at spin up for 20 HDD's. A HDD can consume 20 watts on spin up and if you have a server full of drives that can add up. PSU usually remain most efficient when you don't go too big or too small, so you can easily error on the side of underpowering your system on spin up, or over powering it as a precaution. Believe it or not the extra power from the wrong PSU choice , or a lesser PSU quality will matter more than a 1 watt difference between one HDD or another.

I never understood the obsession and over concern people place on power consumption. You almost never recoup in electricity savings the extra cost you pay up front for many products. I like to keep things reasonable so I do appreciate a lower power hard drive or a platinum or 80plus PSU, but it's got to be within reason.
Edited by Mfusick - 10/13/13 at 7:42pm
post #23 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I don't spin down my drives (except parity on Mobo ports ).

We can agree on that at least biggrin.gif

The only servers I allow to spindown are my archive backup servers that only wake up on Sunday's to do full backups of systems and snapshots and archive the old backups. The rest I just let spin. In 3 years or less (unless something changes) none of it will matter anyway as we'll be adding 4~5TB SSD's to our servers anyway.
post #24 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

Green's have a negligible difference from Reds. They both use intellispeed which means they can idle with very low power usage and keep spinning as to keep their temperature fluctuations and hard starts to a minimum. This is something Seagates cannot do. This is why the WD Reds and Greens can idle at > 1W while the Seagates need 4W to do the same.

That probably explains why the WD Greens are slower to respond than the Seagate 5900s after not being used for a while. I always wondered why that was.
post #25 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I never understood the obsession and over concern people place on power consumption. You almost never recoup in electricity savings the extra cost you pay up front for many products. I like to keep things reasonable so I do appreciate a lower power hard drive or a platinum or 80plus PSU, but it's got to be within reason.

Most likely it is a hold over from the power consumption of computers of just a few years ago. It is the same reason why I uninstall programs and games I no longer use - I remember when the common HDD was itty bitty (GB? No, MB sized) - you had to remove unused items. I still do it out of habit.
post #26 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

That probably explains why the WD Greens are slower to respond than the Seagate 5900s after not being used for a while. I always wondered why that was.

There is additional latency to spin them back up to full speed but not as bad as if the drive has to start from fully stopped. So when you go to access a folder that is idle it might seem like it lags a bit while it's opening. Where a drive that is stopped will feel more like it's frozen.
post #27 of 31
I had drives spinning down on my mobo ports but not my old IBM card, and I noticed when I added a HDD to the mobo port I got wicked bad lag when accessing my server pool. I removed that drive and it went back to being instant so basically if you spin down your drives it causes a delay while they spin up if you try to access them.

I do not care for the delay- and it's not worth the very small cost in energy savings. I'd happily pay 1 cent every time I do not want to wait, which is next to nothing over the entire coarse of a year.

I don't understand how someone can spend hundreds on a HDD, or possibly thousands on PC hardware or server - but cry about pennies on electricity to get 100% enjoyment out of the purchase.
post #28 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I had drives spinning down on my mobo ports but not my old IBM card, and I noticed when I added a HDD to the mobo port I got wicked bad lag when accessing my server pool. I removed that drive and it went back to being instant so basically if you spin down your drives it causes a delay while they spin up if you try to access them.

I do not care for the delay- and it's not worth the very small cost in energy savings. I'd happily pay 1 cent every time I do not want to wait, which is next to nothing over the entire coarse of a year.

I don't understand how someone can spend hundreds on a HDD, or possibly thousands on PC hardware or server - but cry about pennies on electricity to get 100% enjoyment out of the purchase.

It's not pennies if you have a lot of hard drives. It adds up quickly. The difference between the idle power usage and full spin for 48 drives can be between $60 and $200 a year. So if you have over > 50 drives and you have above average electric generation rates you could be looking at quite a difference. That's most likely a small percentage of people but it's still something to consider as you build out your network.
post #29 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

There is additional latency to spin them back up to full speed but not as bad as if the drive has to start from fully stopped. So when you go to access a folder that is idle it might seem like it lags a bit while it's opening. Where a drive that is stopped will feel more like it's frozen.

Yeah, that is why I don't let any of my drives slow down and have now replaced all my WD Greens.
post #30 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

It's not pennies if you have a lot of hard drives. It adds up quickly. The difference between the idle power usage and full spin for 48 drives can be between $60 and $200 a year. So if you have over > 50 drives and you have above average electric generation rates you could be looking at quite a difference. That's most likely a small percentage of people but it's still something to consider as you build out your network.

I don't ever plan to have more than 20 HDD's and I pay about 8 cents per kwh so it's definitively not hundreds. I am ok with spending something. It's clearly worth 5$ a month for me not to have to wait when I access my server pool (often). It's money well spent.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Home Theater Computers
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › Western Digital Red or Green?