Author Topic: Just read something awful about WD Red drives...  (Read 1323 times)

Offline kitamesume

  • Member
  • Posts: 9294
  • Death is pleasure, Living is torment.
Re: Just read something awful about WD Red drives...
« Reply #20 on: December 03, 2016, 08:33:11 pm »
recent SSDs also have preemptive measures against abrupt power loss, at the very least they won't get bricked and only lose the latest file transfer.
the only remaining problem with SSDs is that it's stored data can decay when subjected to prolonged unpowered state, e.g. unplugged.

so in general SSDs are sort of more reliable as a short-term storage.

Offline Al_Sleeper

  • Member
  • Posts: 8517
Re: Just read something awful about WD Red drives...
« Reply #21 on: December 03, 2016, 08:53:00 pm »
so in general SSDs are sort of more reliable as a short-term storage.
But still not cost efficient.

Offline kitamesume

  • Member
  • Posts: 9294
  • Death is pleasure, Living is torment.
Re: Just read something awful about WD Red drives...
« Reply #22 on: December 03, 2016, 09:02:23 pm »
so in general SSDs are sort of more reliable as a short-term storage.
But still not cost efficient.
quite true, the only reason why anyone would use an SSD for storage is if it concerns portability and ruggedness.
in this case a mechanical HDD would end up being battered to death.

Online Govna

  • Member
  • Posts: 135
Re: Just read something awful about WD Red drives...
« Reply #23 on: December 03, 2016, 11:03:07 pm »
Hitachis were called "deathstars" a while ago as well. I can't think of a single company that has been free of issues.

That said, my current position is pretty much stay away from mechanical drives, unless you specifically need an archive.

I thought SSDs were much more susceptible to bricking if there were a power outage.

Not really, no. There are concerns about losing data that hasn't been fully written but you can design for that.

Offline Saras

  • Member
  • Posts: 2916
  • How might I assist you?
Re: Just read something awful about WD Red drives...
« Reply #24 on: December 03, 2016, 11:22:48 pm »
so in general SSDs are sort of more reliable as a short-term storage.
But still not cost efficient.
quite true, the only reason why anyone would use an SSD for storage is if it concerns portability and ruggedness.
in this case a mechanical HDD would end up being battered to death.

Depends on how much you value a file and how much of them you need to save.

Whatever the case might be, I have a very limited amount of data that I actively use at a time. SSDs are fine fore me. I have a 3tb mechanical, however I only use it a a backup I keep on the shelf.

Offline Pentium100

  • Member
  • Posts: 651
Re: Just read something awful about WD Red drives...
« Reply #25 on: December 04, 2016, 09:44:45 am »
My WD RED dries have about 9000 load cycles maximum for about 17000 working hours.

When I noticed this problem (though my drives seem to park the heads after a few minutes of inactivity), I just put a script that accesses all WD drives every minute to cron. I no longer have to wait for the drives to get ready when I want to access the files and the load cycle counter does not seem to increase.
BBT Ika Musume Fanclub Member #080586
Misaka Mikoto Fanclub Member:080586

Offline Tiffanys

  • Member
  • Posts: 10255
  • real female girl ojō-sama
Re: Just read something awful about WD Red drives...
« Reply #26 on: December 04, 2016, 12:05:15 pm »
so in general SSDs are sort of more reliable as a short-term storage.
But still not cost efficient.
quite true, the only reason why anyone would use an SSD for storage is if it concerns portability and ruggedness.
in this case a mechanical HDD would end up being battered to death.

Depends on how much you value a file and how much of them you need to save.

Whatever the case might be, I have a very limited amount of data that I actively use at a time. SSDs are fine fore me. I have a 3tb mechanical, however I only use it a a backup I keep on the shelf.
To give you an idea of why I use large HDD's: Where I live the fastest internet that is available is 10/1 Mbit, which is terrible to say the least. What's more, there's a 200GB/mo bandwidth limit.

I use large HDD's to archive TV shows, movies, anime, porn, and to store video games (as many games take up 20-60GB all on their own they can add up in size pretty quick). I also redundantly store backups of my important files from C across most of my large HDD's in case there's ever a failure so that it won't be a total loss. Though, nowadays I redundantly backup the most important stuff on both Dropbox and Google Drive.

Archiving stuff like this is more convenient for me for a few reasons: If my internet ever goes down, I'll have plenty of stuff to watch or do. If I ever want to watch or play something I have archived I can do it right away rather than having to wait at this snail speed to download it. Plus, if there's ever an apocalypse that somehow manages to destroy the internet... I'll be a lot better off. :P

edit: Also, my HDD space is pretty dire right now, to give you an idea:


...I definitely need a new one. But now I don't even know what I should get. I'm kind of considering getting an 8TB WD Red and then just taking it to a computer repair shop and having them do the firmware update, cause I really can't be bothered to pull out all my HDD's and then fuck around with my boot order in BIOS, and then the whole matter of making the bootable USB crap.... but god, they'd probably charge like $60 minimum... maybe even closer to $150. I don't even know that convenience is worth that much. It'd probably be cheaper to just buy a different brand that doesn't have problems. Unfortunately, the other brands I've looked at have some people complaining about them being too loud, and for one the suggested fix is a firmware update (FML).
« Last Edit: December 04, 2016, 12:20:06 pm by Tiffanys »

Offline Pentium100

  • Member
  • Posts: 651
Re: Just read something awful about WD Red drives...
« Reply #27 on: December 04, 2016, 05:55:32 pm »
edit: Also, my HDD space is pretty dire right now, to give you an idea:

I used to be like you, but then a hard drive failed and I decided to finally have a proper storage server with RAID. It has 12x 3TB hard drives in a raid60 configuration (actually, a couple of zfs raidz2 vdevs) to give me a total capacity of ~24TB with the ability to survive failure of any two drives. In addition to storing movies I also use it for backups of my other servers.

I really do not miss the days of having ten separate drive letters, now there are only three - movies/games/etc, other stuff like photos and downloaded files, the storage of my torrent server. I may add a fourth temporarily to install games, because my system drive is running out of space and I cannot find time to finally install the remaining 6 drives to have RAID and enough capacity.
BBT Ika Musume Fanclub Member #080586
Misaka Mikoto Fanclub Member:080586

Offline Saras

  • Member
  • Posts: 2916
  • How might I assist you?
Re: Just read something awful about WD Red drives...
« Reply #28 on: December 04, 2016, 09:05:47 pm »
edit: Also, my HDD space is pretty dire right now, to give you an idea:

I used to be like you, but then a hard drive failed and I decided to finally have a proper storage server with RAID. It has 12x 3TB hard drives in a raid60 configuration (actually, a couple of zfs raidz2 vdevs) to give me a total capacity of ~24TB with the ability to survive failure of any two drives. In addition to storing movies I also use it for backups of my other servers.

I really do not miss the days of having ten separate drive letters, now there are only three - movies/games/etc, other stuff like photos and downloaded files, the storage of my torrent server. I may add a fourth temporarily to install games, because my system drive is running out of space and I cannot find time to finally install the remaining 6 drives to have RAID and enough capacity.

I kind of agree. Go with raid, 60 sounds like a wee bit of an overkil 5/6 should be fine.

Also, if you do end up going with redundancy, you can cheap out on the drives, because well, they're supposed to be expendable and unless my memory serves me wrong, ZFS is rather tolerant to mixing and matching.

Offline Pentium100

  • Member
  • Posts: 651
Re: Just read something awful about WD Red drives...
« Reply #29 on: December 04, 2016, 09:20:54 pm »
I kind of agree. Go with raid, 60 sounds like a wee bit of an overkil 5/6 should be fine.

Also, if you do end up going with redundancy, you can cheap out on the drives, because well, they're supposed to be expendable and unless my memory serves me wrong, ZFS is rather tolerant to mixing and matching.

It was raid6 some time ago, as I started running out of space, I added another raid6 (z2) vdev, so now it's raid60. Raid5 with large drives is really not recommended because there is high probability that another drive will fail during the rebuild, since the rebuild takes a long time.

ZFS does not really care whether drives are the same of different. You can have, say, raid6 of 8 drives x 3TB and another vdev that's raid6 of 6 drives x 6TB
BBT Ika Musume Fanclub Member #080586
Misaka Mikoto Fanclub Member:080586

Offline Tiffanys

  • Member
  • Posts: 10255
  • real female girl ojō-sama
Re: Just read something awful about WD Red drives...
« Reply #30 on: December 06, 2016, 03:10:12 pm »
Nah, I can't be bothered to mess with RAID. In regards to alternatives, here's a few I'm looking at:
Seagate IronWolf 8TB NAS - more reviews to read on Amazon (but avoid due to bad HDD shipping practices)
WD Purple 8TB - same as above, more on Amazon

There are some others but I don't know how reliable this one is, or this one. With that last one being ~$100 cheaper than the first two I linked it kinda makes me think it has to be significantly lower quality.

I'm thinking I'll probably go ahead and order one of the 8TB IronWolfs later today unless anyone has something bad to say about them. They're 7200RPM so that's an interesting change for mass storage.

Online Govna

  • Member
  • Posts: 135
Re: Just read something awful about WD Red drives...
« Reply #31 on: December 06, 2016, 06:18:49 pm »
Nah, I can't be bothered to mess with RAID. In regards to alternatives, here's a few I'm looking at:
Seagate IronWolf 8TB NAS - more reviews to read on Amazon (but avoid due to bad HDD shipping practices)
WD Purple 8TB - same as above, more on Amazon

There are some others but I don't know how reliable this one is, or this one. With that last one being ~$100 cheaper than the first two I linked it kinda makes me think it has to be significantly lower quality.

I'm thinking I'll probably go ahead and order one of the 8TB IronWolfs later today unless anyone has something bad to say about them. They're 7200RPM so that's an interesting change for mass storage.

It just depends on what you want to do with the HDDs. NAS drives tend to have slower buffers and produce more noise, while also being more sensitive to vibration. Also make sure you're buying from a place that you know of/trust the RMA process, since the higher the density the storage, the higher the chance of receiving a DOA drive. It's nothing really to do with whatever company you buy from, just the nature of storage.

Offline megido-rev.M

  • Member
  • Posts: 21287
  • Come now, it's nothing special.
Re: Just read something awful about WD Red drives...
« Reply #32 on: December 07, 2016, 03:26:00 am »
You people are arguing over dozens of TBs worth of space, and here I'm sitting at no more than ~7...
Quote
That's it! I've come up with a new recipe!

Offline halfelite

  • Member
  • Posts: 1615
Re: Just read something awful about WD Red drives...
« Reply #33 on: December 07, 2016, 05:27:34 am »
Box1
Media/Media      33T   25T   8T  /Media/Media
VM/VM             15T      8T   7T  /VM/VM

Box2
Backup/Backup      20T   18T   2T  /Backup/Backup

I am getting low on space to. I was eyeing the 8TB drives and moving from ZFS over the an unraid box just for the sole reason of having the drives spin down when not in use.


Offline jagdtigger

  • Member
  • Posts: 105
Re: Just read something awful about WD Red drives...
« Reply #34 on: December 10, 2016, 04:49:40 pm »
I have exactly the opposite experience. All my Seagate drives died relatively quickly; one of them with a sudden failure with total data loss.
I also have two faulty WD drives, but they are still functional, years after the initial fault. I use them in a docking station to store some relatively unnecessary backup files.
I have mostly WD HDD's(and one samsung) and not one of them died yet, even my 7 years old 200GB blue is still working propeely :D :
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1201829/ltt-forum/IMG_20161120_232643.jpg

/ON topic
My oldest WD RED in my NAS has 21364 hours behind its back and the mentioned SMART attribute is at 2534...

My WD RED dries have about 9000 load cycles maximum for about 17000 working hours.

When I noticed this problem (though my drives seem to park the heads after a few minutes of inactivity), I just put a script that accesses all WD drives every minute to cron. I no longer have to wait for the drives to get ready when I want to access the files and the load cycle counter does not seem to increase.
I think disabling disk hibernation at the OS level is much easier... :D

It depends on what you want to do with the HDDs. NAS drives tend to have slower buffers and produce more noise, while also being more sensitive to vibration. Also make sure you're buying from a place that you know of/trust the RMA process, since the higher the density the storage, the higher the chance of receiving a DOA drive. It's nothing really to do with whatever company you buy from, just the nature of storage.
Umm... Are you sure? I thought NAS drives were designed to be less prone to vibration because of the environment they will be in...
« Last Edit: December 10, 2016, 05:08:06 pm by jagdtigger »

Offline kitamesume

  • Member
  • Posts: 9294
  • Death is pleasure, Living is torment.
Re: Just read something awful about WD Red drives...
« Reply #35 on: December 10, 2016, 08:06:35 pm »
NAS drives are less prone to vibrations, they have an active vibration dampener built into them.

Online Govna

  • Member
  • Posts: 135
Re: Just read something awful about WD Red drives...
« Reply #36 on: December 11, 2016, 12:26:25 am »
NAS drives are less prone to vibrations, they have an active vibration dampener built into them.

No, unless explicitly stated they don't. You're thinking of HDDs for rack mounts.

NAS is consumer stuff and tends to be cheaper than other drives. Thinner cases make them more prone to vibration damage since they're expected to be inside a NAS enclosure and have more care given to them than being tossed into a pc case.

Offline kitamesume

  • Member
  • Posts: 9294
  • Death is pleasure, Living is torment.
Re: Just read something awful about WD Red drives...
« Reply #37 on: December 11, 2016, 01:09:32 am »
NAS drives are less prone to vibrations, they have an active vibration dampener built into them.

No, unless explicitly stated they don't. You're thinking of HDDs for rack mounts.

NAS is consumer stuff and tends to be cheaper than other drives. Thinner cases make them more prone to vibration damage since they're expected to be inside a NAS enclosure and have more care given to them than being tossed into a pc case.

how about you read into western digital's red drives then?

https://www.wdc.com/products/internal-storage/wd-red.html
Quote
3D Active Balance Plus

Helps to ensure your data is protected from excessive vibration and noise in a NAS or RAID environment.
This dual-plane balance control maintains your drive’s performance over time.



even seagate's Ironwolf non-pro NAS HDDs have vibration protection, aside from their lower capacities.

http://www.seagate.com/as/en/internal-hard-drives/ironwolf/
Quote
AgileArray and the Power of IronWolf for Your NAS

Dual-plane balance and Rotational Vibration (RV) sensors are available on select IronWolf capacities, and come standard with IronWolf Pro.
RV sensors mitigate vibration in multi-bay NAS enclosures for consistent performance and reliability for years to come.



hitachi's desktar NAS as well have vibration protection features.

https://www.hgst.com/products/hard-drives/nas-desktop-drive-kit
Quote
The innovative rotational vibration sensor anticipates disturbances and counteracts them in multi-drive environments—maintaining high input/output performance.



all of which are priced identically.
https://pcpartpicker.com/products/compare/QRLypg,6MX2FT,rkV48d/





point is, NAS arrays actually needs HDDs with vibration protection due to their inherent resonance between multiple HDDs.

each HDDs generates their own vibration, with a lot of them stuffed inside the same NAS box they'll resonate with each other.
and this is where vibration protection kicks in, it diminishes self-vibration on top of dampening external vibrations.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2016, 01:45:51 am by kitamesume »

Offline VicViper573

  • Member
  • Posts: 1053
Re: Just read something awful about WD Red drives...
« Reply #38 on: December 11, 2016, 03:28:01 am »
So, who here has 1 PB+ of data stored on WD hard drives?

Offline halfelite

  • Member
  • Posts: 1615
Re: Just read something awful about WD Red drives...
« Reply #39 on: December 11, 2016, 05:37:12 am »
No, unless explicitly stated they don't. You're thinking of HDDs for rack mounts.

NAS is consumer stuff and tends to be cheaper than other drives. Thinner cases make them more prone to vibration damage since they're expected to be inside a NAS enclosure and have more care given to them than being tossed into a pc case.

No all NAS drives have some sort of anti-vibration tech the question is always how much. Like WD RED line. The normal WD red is for 1-8 drives in a NAS the RED pro is for 8-16 drives in a unit. Anything over 16 you get into Data center editions. As for your tossed in a PC Case you are thinking Shock factor not vibration factor. NAS drives and Consumer grade drives like WD blue and green have the same Shock factor as the Red line. The Data center edition more then double the shock factor. 

Your standard red and green drive specs for Shock are
Shock (Gs)
Operating (2 ms, read/write) - 30
Operating (2 ms, read) - 65
Non-operating (2 ms) - 250

Your Datacenter editions are
Shock (Gs)
Operating (half-sine wave, 2 ms) - 70G
Non-operating (half-sine wave) 300 (1ms)/150(11ms)

What Makes a NAS driver different is usually the motor is secure on both sides where desktop versions is secured only on one side. The spindles on NAS drives are mounted different to have more support same with the read/write arm.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2016, 05:41:04 am by halfelite »