Discussion Forums > Technology

Seagate ST3000DM001 or WD Red WD30EFRX?

(1/2) > >>

Sakura90:
So.... that's the question. There's no other choice, Greens are everywhere here. Anyone has either? From the Seagate I keep reading about the "crappy" 1yr warranty and the 2400 power-on hours. But as far as I know those 2400 are the same for all desktop drives, they are not designed for 24/7 operation. Just that in this case Seagate states it in the specs.

Here is where the WD Red comes, designed for NAS and 24/7. Now, I don't care about anything NAS (I'm in a crappy country, the best I can get is a cheap dock), but I do about reliability. Would it be a good idea to get it for that even if I won't use the NAS features? The MTBF is 1 million hours (3/4 million for the Seagate) and it's meant for 24/7, so I guess they are more sturdy, hence reliable, than the desktop Seagates.

I don't think I'll even hit the 2400 h/yr, as I have some old WD Greens for daily use and the new disk will be mainly for backup. What should I do...? All I read about the Seagates is complaining about the warranty and little about the actual drive. Warranty doesn't matter here, I think the WD Red isn't intended for official sale in this country, so I only have the warranty of the importer, 1yr, the same for the Seagate.



Btw, I have a Seagate ST500DM002 (also with the infamous 2400 power-on hours) for 6 months I think, 24/7. Now it carries almost 4000 hours and I still have to see an error. I read somewhere that going above those 2400 only makes the AFR of the drive go from <1% to a [slightly] higher percentage. Any ideas about this? :-\

krumm:
No one can answer this question with out talking out you know what.  What anyone tells you here(or anywhere) is going to be based off to small of a sample to tell you anything.  there is already a post on here about wd vs seagate and that is the best your going to get.

kitamesume:

--- Quote from: Sakura90 on November 16, 2012, 12:08:29 AM ---So.... that's the question. There's no other choice, Greens are everywhere here. Anyone has either? From the Seagate I keep reading about the "crappy" 1yr warranty and the 2400 power-on hours. But as far as I know those 2400 are the same for all desktop drives, they are not designed for 24/7 operation.

--- End quote ---
i stopped reading here. i wonder how people even manage to seed their torrents 24/7 over years without swapping their drives.

megido-rev.M:
Actually, that rating would be higher. I believe it's a marketing tactic to compel prospective buyers into picking enterprise class stuff.

kureshii:
Don’t just go by MTBF hours and marketing-speak. Not all of those “NAS optimisations” are good for desktop use.

Before we get into that, we have to take a quick look at assumptions inherent in the design of desktop HDDs vs enterprise/NAS/RAID HDDs. In a desktop, engineers assume that drives are on their own and contain the only copy of user’s data. That means if data is requested from a sector and the disk is unable to read it the first time, it should keep trying until it is successful, or failing that, to take alternative measures, e.g. returning read error, marking sector as bad, remapping sectors, etc. This process takes quite a while, resulting (usually) in system non-responsiveness for many seconds, but at least you get your data instead of the disk just giving up after a few tries.

In a RAID system, this is not necessarily a good thing. Drives are typically part of a storage array, often RAIDed, so it does not carry the only copy of data. If a read error is encountered, it is safe to return a read error after a few failed tries. The RAID controller then marks the sector bad, rebuilds the lost data from other data+parity blocks (this is what RAID is for), and life goes on.

However, if the drive’s built-in error recovery system kicks in, it ends up trying to retrieve the data continuously. The disk doesn't respond for a long time, and the RAID controller takes this as a sign that the disk is down, and kicks it out of the array. The RAID array thus gets degraded just because of a read error in one sector alone—quite pointless. Red drives thus have an additional feature, labelled by WD marketing as TLER (goes by other names on other brand hard drive lines; see below). This provides a user-configurable setting to determine how long the drive should attempt error recovery before giving up, so it does not get kicked out of the array.

The Reds come with TLER enabled by default (their target market is for NAS after all), with a value of 7 (seconds). If you’re using it as a standalone drive, you probably do not want this, unless you like having more read errors than normal (i.e. without TLER). Unfortunately, WD’s TLER utility for Windows doesn’t work on the Reds (or so the internets tell me), so you’ll either have to learn some smartctl trickery (better RTFM!), or buy something that’s more in line with what you want (3TB models are going for $180 at time of writing; slightly more than the Reds and Seagates, but all things considered I think you’re better off paying the difference).

More info on TLER at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_recovery_control, and on Red drives at http://www.anandtech.com/show/6157/western-digital-red-review-are-nasoptimized-hdds-worth-the-premium/2.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page