expiredShane1234 posted Aug 23, 2021 01:11 PM
expiredShane1234 posted Aug 23, 2021 01:11 PM
Western Digital 4TB WD Red NAS Internal Hard Drive HDD - $85 + Free shipping w/ Prime $84.99
$85
Amazon
Visit AmazonGood Deal
Bad Deal
Save
Share
Sold By | Sale Price |
---|---|
![]() | $141.94 |
Leave a Comment
18 Comments
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
These are "WD Red" and are SMR.
The "WD Red Plus" are the better and CMR.
These are "WD Red" and are SMR.
The "WD Red Plus" are the better and CMR.
These are "WD Red" and are SMR.
The "WD Red Plus" are the better and CMR.
https://www.amazon.com/HGST-Ultra...0856WZT
HGST Ultrastar 7K4000 4TB 64MB Cache 7200RPM SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5inch Internal Hard Drive (for NAS, Desktop PC/Mac, Surveillance Storage, CCTV DVR) - 5 Year Warranty (Renewed)
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
https://www.amazon.com/HGST-Ultra...0856WZT
HGST Ultrastar 7K4000 4TB 64MB Cache 7200RPM SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5inch Internal Hard Drive (for NAS, Desktop PC/Mac, Surveillance Storage, CCTV DVR) - 5 Year Warranty (Renewed)
On the other hand:
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank b.arms
S stands for "Shingled"
MR means "Magnetic Recording"
In most (arguably all) applications, CMR is best.
Shingled (SMR) has the data overlapping, like a shingle. While this doesn't really affect reading the data, writing new data means all of the overlapping data has to be moved out of the way first. and all of the overlapping data on top of that has to be moved as well... and so on...
It's fine for archival purposes, write once and store as a backup, etc... but for everyday use, SMR is terrible. In a NAS it's even worse, particularly one that uses ZFS. It can make a RAID array that would usually take 12 hours or so to rebuild with a CMR drive take several weeks on an SMR drive. That is what made these drives so maddening. SMR is the worst performing drive you could put in a modern NAS, yet that's what WD labelled them for without telling anyone they did it.
S stands for "Shingled"
MR means "Magnetic Recording"
In most (arguably all) applications, CMR is best.
Shingled (SMR) has the data overlapping, like a shingle. While this doesn't really affect reading the data, writing new data means all of the overlapping data has to be moved out of the way first. and all of the overlapping data on top of that has to be moved as well... and so on...
It's fine for archival purposes, write once and store as a backup, etc... but for everyday use, SMR is terrible. In a NAS it's even worse, particularly one that uses ZFS. It can make a RAID array that would usually take 12 hours or so to rebuild with a CMR drive take several weeks on an SMR drive. That is what made these drives so maddening. SMR is the worst performing drive you could put in a modern NAS, yet that's what WD labelled them for without telling anyone they did it.
If I am putting some photos on a backup that I will probably not touch again for awhile, this will probably be fine, correct? Otherwise get the "plus".
If I am putting some photos on a backup that I will probably not touch again for awhile, this will probably be fine, correct? Otherwise get the "plus".
As far as I know, there's no benefit to the end user to use SMR, it only benefits the manufacturer because they can squeeze about 30% more data on to each platter.
I would use those reconditioned 4TB Ultrastars that someone linked in this thread long before buying SMR drives. That's just a personal preference I suppose, but HGST makes insanely reliable drives, especially their enterprise line. Sucks that WD bought them.
Off Topic Nostalgia Time:
It's funny that back in the day, Hitachi bought IBM's Hard Drive division, but didn't change the model names at all. Anyone who knew anything about computers knew that IBM's consumer drives "DeskStar" had been referred to as "DeathStar" for several years at that point due to their horrible reliability. I learned in the mid 2000's that Hitachi "DeskStars" were some of the most reliable drives you could get, yet they could often be found cheap because people still had that model name association.
After the flood in Thailand that ground WD to a crawl and caused the market to get desperate, everyone else soon learned Hitachi drives were awesome too. and the "Deathstar" moniker was all but forgotten.
ZFS file system, ECC system memory, light use, ~4.5 years and still going strong. I have yet to have one fail on me, though I always keep a spare and replace when I'm starting to get errors. I've been doing it for years (decades really). Just got two more 4TB EZAX @ $75 ea.
That goes for new drives as well, and I've found my share of soon-to-be-failing drives by just letting those long tests run. Send back as DOA within the 30-day return period, never have to deal with the manufacturers or lose any data.
https://www.amazon.com/HGST-Ultra...0856WZT
HGST Ultrastar 7K4000 4TB 64MB Cache 7200RPM SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5inch Internal Hard Drive (for NAS, Desktop PC/Mac, Surveillance Storage, CCTV DVR) - 5 Year Warranty (Renewed)
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
In a home environment HDs are most of the time just spinning idle. In such case, consumer-type HDs, like the WD Blue line, are parfectly fine (as the SMART data I posted shows).
On the other hand, if you are in a commercial environment where HDs are pushed to their mechanical/thermal/electrical limits most of the time, then you may(*) need, and can justify their price, drives capable of delivering 100s of TBs over their lifetime, like the mentioned HGST made ones.
To each his/her own and according to their needs (ha!), so oftentimes the "crap" drives, as you call them, are the most suitable solution.
(*) Spend some time looking through Backblaze reliability reporting.
Leave a Comment