Personal computing discussed

Moderators: renee, morphine, Steel

 
ptsant
Gerbil XP
Topic Author
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:45 pm

Which 4TB drive?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 9:13 am

I would like to buy 2x4TB drives for 24/7 storage of huge files (genomic data). I work with these files by copying them on a 256GB SSD, doing some calculations, then copying back to the HD. I will map the two drives in a single 8TB JBOD (not RAID 1) partition. Reliability would be nice but if a disaster happens, the files can be found again from the laboratory (and reprocessed if necessary), so I don't see this as "backup" space. Price is of some importance, but I can pay a more expensive drive if it's really worth it overall.

I see the following options:
- HGST Deskstar 7K4000 at 176 CHF
- WD RED 4TB 189 CHF
- WD RED Pro 4 TB 247 CHF
- WD Se 4 TB 251 CHF
- HGST Ultrastar 7K4000 278 CHF
- WD Re 4 TB 287 CHF

I currently use a WD RE3 1TB that has been working happily for more than 5 years. What would you recommend? Between the WD RED and the HGST Deskstar, I'd get the HGST. Between the RED Pro and the Se, I'd probably get the Se. I'm not sure between the Ultrastar and the RE, but both are quite expensive.

I think I'm leaning towards the Deskstar, which is the cheapest option. Any ideas?

Thanks for you opinion
Image
 
Chrispy_
Maximum Gerbil
Posts: 4670
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 3:49 pm
Location: Europe, most frequently London.

Re: Which 4TB drive?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 9:42 am

I'd take the Deskstar too. Best general-purpose drive in your list, as long as the drive bays you're putting them in are cool enough for 7200RPM drives.

I run reds, but only because I want very quiet drives.
Congratulations, you've noticed that this year's signature is based on outdated internet memes; CLICK HERE NOW to experience this unforgettable phenomenon. This sentence is just filler and as irrelevant as my signature.
 
JustAnEngineer
Gerbil God
Posts: 19673
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: The Heart of Dixie

Re: Which 4TB drive?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 9:52 am

For the Swiss prices that you've listed, the Deskstar is the most appealing. Looking at Newegg's prices this morning, the best deals are:
$/TB
35.00 4 TB Western Digital Green WD40EZRX (5400 rpm)
36.25 4 TB Seagate ST4000DM000 (5900 rpm)
37.50 4 TB Seagate ST4000DX001 (5900 rpm + SSD cache)
40.75 4 TB Western Digital Red WD40EFRX (5400 rpm)
40.83 6 TB Western Digital Green WD60EZRX (5400 rpm)
41.00 5 TB Western Digital Green WD50EZRX (5400 rpm)
41.25 4 TB HGST H3IKNAS40003272SN - 0S03664 (7200 rpm)
41.25 4 TB Toshiba MD03ACA400V (7200 rpm)
42.08 6 TB Seagate STBD6000100 (5900 rpm)
42.80 5 TB Western Digital Red WD50EFRX (5400 rpm)
44.33 6 TB Western Digital Red WD60EFRX (5400 rpm)
46.80 5 TB Toshiba PH3500U-1I72 (7200 rpm)
· R7-5800X, Liquid Freezer II 280, RoG Strix X570-E, 64GiB PC4-28800, Suprim Liquid RTX4090, 2TB SX8200Pro +4TB S860 +NAS, Define 7 Compact, Super Flower SF-1000F14TP, S3220DGF +32UD99, FC900R OE, DeathAdder2
 
just brew it!
Administrator
Posts: 54500
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: Which 4TB drive?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 11:46 am

If noise/heat are a concern at all, go with the WD Reds; otherwise I'd vote for the HGST Deskstars. Since you're planning to do JBOD instead of RAID-1 (or any other higher-level RAID) I would avoid the REs since they actually dial back the aggressiveness of the drive's internal error recovery algorithm.

Also, given that you're not doing any kind of redundant RAID, you might as well do RAID-0 instead of JBOD. Failure of a single drive will result in loss of all contents in either case, so you might as well have the extra sequential I/O performance of RAID-0.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
ptsant
Gerbil XP
Topic Author
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:45 pm

Re: Which 4TB drive?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 12:04 pm

just brew it! wrote:
If noise/heat are a concern at all, go with the WD Reds; otherwise I'd vote for the HGST Deskstars. Since you're planning to do JBOD instead of RAID-1 (or any other higher-level RAID) I would avoid the REs since they actually dial back the aggressiveness of the drive's internal error recovery algorithm.

Also, given that you're not doing any kind of redundant RAID, you might as well do RAID-0 instead of JBOD. Failure of a single drive will result in loss of all contents in either case, so you might as well have the extra sequential I/O performance of RAID-0.


Thanks to all for your answers. You got me thinking about noise/heat. I see that the Red 4TB is rated 4.5W in operation (RW) and 3.3W idle while the HGST is rated at 10W and 7W respectively. Multiplied by 2 drives this gives approximately 8W at idle, so something like 15CHF max in electricity in one year. Furthermore, being quiet is probably an added bonus because the server is in the living room. So, I guess I'll get the WD Red. Any other opinions?

Are you sure that JBOD is as fragile as RAID0? I always did RAID1 so I don't have any experience with that but I imagined that JBOD would still allow one to access file on the non-corrupt disk.
Image
 
just brew it!
Administrator
Posts: 54500
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: Which 4TB drive?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 12:16 pm

ptsant wrote:
Are you sure that JBOD is as fragile as RAID0? I always did RAID1 so I don't have any experience with that but I imagined that JBOD would still allow one to access file on the non-corrupt disk.

No... you'll have a slightly better chance (as in, higher than zero) of being able to recover *some* of the files in the case of a JBOD failure, but it'll likely take a non-trivial amount of effort. Best to plan on all of the data being toasted either way if one of the drives fails.

If you want the data on the other drive to remain intact when one fails, you really want to configure them as two separate volumes.

Edit: Also, I may have misspoken on the RE issue. IIRC the Reds have the same tweaks to the error recovery algorithms, so between the Red and RE it just comes down to heat/noise. WD Greens have "traditional" (more aggressive) error recovery and lower power usage, but seem to be more failure prone than the Reds so I can't in good conscience recommend them over the Reds for 24x7 application.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
Deanjo
Graphmaster Gerbil
Posts: 1212
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:31 am

Re: Which 4TB drive?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 12:47 pm

just brew it! wrote:
Edit: Also, I may have misspoken on the RE issue. IIRC the Reds have the same tweaks to the error recovery algorithms, so between the Red and RE it just comes down to heat/noise. WD Greens have "traditional" (more aggressive) error recovery and lower power usage, but seem to be more failure prone than the Reds so I can't in good conscience recommend them over the Reds for 24x7 application.


IIRC the RE's also have more vibration detection and correction with is also found in the Red Pro's.
 
Igor_Kavinski
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Posts: 2077
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 2:34 am

Re: Which 4TB drive?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 1:03 pm

http://www.amazon.com/Book-dual-drive-h ... 00KU686D2/

I know, not cheap but still worthy of consideration.
 
just brew it!
Administrator
Posts: 54500
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: Which 4TB drive?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 1:18 pm

Deanjo wrote:
IIRC the RE's also have more vibration detection and correction with is also found in the Red Pro's.

Guess I missed the memo on the release of the Red Pros. So the Red Pro is basically a lower RPM RE?

How many different types of mechanical HDDs does WD have now? They've released so many different variants lately (which are all basically different combinations of spindle speeds, mechanical internals, and firmware) it is becoming impossible to keep track. It almost feels like a Taco Bell menu -- how many ways can you put meat, beans, cheese, and tortillas together and convince people that there are worthwhile differences between the various permutations?
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
DancinJack
Maximum Gerbil
Posts: 4494
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Kansas

Re: Which 4TB drive?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Yeah, too many to choose from. FWIW, in my new computer I used a Deskstar NAS. They are cheap enough that i'm not TERRIBLY concerned about the 3 year warranty, but I wish it was 5.

Anyway, take a peek here (shows some of the other drives we're talking about as well): http://anandtech.com/show/8743/hgst-des ... b-review/2
i7 6700K - Z170 - 16GiB DDR4 - GTX 1080 - 512GB SSD - 256GB SSD - 500GB SSD - 3TB HDD- 27" IPS G-sync - Win10 Pro x64 - Ubuntu/Mint x64 :: 2015 13" rMBP Sierra :: Canon EOS 80D/Sony RX100
 
Igor_Kavinski
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Posts: 2077
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 2:34 am

Re: Which 4TB drive?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 2:08 pm

The RAID 5 rebuild times for the Deskstar NAS are close to the Seagate Enterprise drive. THAT is impressive :o
 
ptsant
Gerbil XP
Topic Author
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:45 pm

Re: Which 4TB drive?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:28 pm

After some more thought, maybe the Red 6 TB is a good choice. Space should be enough (I estimate 4-5TB for my current project). The advantage is less power/noise and lower probability of failure with respect to RAID0/JBOD. Plus the 6TB drive has a slightly higher nominal speed (~175MB/s vs 150MB/s) than the 4TB Red. Local price is ~290 CHF, so it is slightly more expensive per TB than the HGST Deskstar and the Red 4TB.
Image
 
LASR
Gerbil First Class
Posts: 147
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:35 pm

Re: Which 4TB drive?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:50 pm

As someone who recently bought 8x4TB WD Greens, stay away from WD Green.
 
Chrispy_
Maximum Gerbil
Posts: 4670
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 3:49 pm
Location: Europe, most frequently London.

Re: Which 4TB drive?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 5:47 pm

LASR wrote:
As someone who recently bought 8x4TB WD Greens, stay away from WD Green.

God yes. Greens can't be RAIDed at all they just drop out constantly.

Sure, you can fix them with firmware and software, but it's better to just buy a drive that won't give you a world of RAID headaches in the first place....
Congratulations, you've noticed that this year's signature is based on outdated internet memes; CLICK HERE NOW to experience this unforgettable phenomenon. This sentence is just filler and as irrelevant as my signature.
 
just brew it!
Administrator
Posts: 54500
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: Which 4TB drive?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 6:17 pm

ptsant wrote:
After some more thought, maybe the Red 6 TB is a good choice. Space should be enough (I estimate 4-5TB for my current project). The advantage is less power/noise and lower probability of failure with respect to RAID0/JBOD.

Maybe, maybe not. Top-end capacity typically means lots of platters and heads, which means more wear and tear on the spindle motor, bearings, and head actuator. Seek noise will typically be a little higher as well since the head actuator needs to move more mass around.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
Waco
Maximum Gerbil
Posts: 4850
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:14 pm
Location: Los Alamos, NM

Re: Which 4TB drive?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 6:19 pm

Chrispy_ wrote:
LASR wrote:
As someone who recently bought 8x4TB WD Greens, stay away from WD Green.

God yes. Greens can't be RAIDed at all they just drop out constantly.

Any desktop drive without TLER will do that. WD Greens are no worse than any others (minus the ones that park the heads incredibly aggressively).
Victory requires no explanation. Defeat allows none.
 
just brew it!
Administrator
Posts: 54500
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: Which 4TB drive?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 6:31 pm

Waco wrote:
Chrispy_ wrote:
LASR wrote:
As someone who recently bought 8x4TB WD Greens, stay away from WD Green.

God yes. Greens can't be RAIDed at all they just drop out constantly.

Any desktop drive without TLER will do that. WD Greens are no worse than any others (minus the ones that park the heads incredibly aggressively).

...and the Greens were the ones that started the whole "aggressive head parking" thing.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
Deanjo
Graphmaster Gerbil
Posts: 1212
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:31 am

Re: Which 4TB drive?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 7:43 pm

just brew it! wrote:
Deanjo wrote:
IIRC the RE's also have more vibration detection and correction with is also found in the Red Pro's.

Guess I missed the memo on the release of the Red Pros. So the Red Pro is basically a lower RPM RE?


The red pro's actually spin at 7200 RPM (and a 5 year warranty) like the RE's as well.
 
just brew it!
Administrator
Posts: 54500
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: Which 4TB drive?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 8:25 pm

OK. so it's... another name for the RE? Or a Red with a higher spindle speed and longer warranty? I stand by my Taco Bell analogy! :D
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
JustAnEngineer
Gerbil God
Posts: 19673
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: The Heart of Dixie

Re: Which 4TB drive?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 8:30 pm

Other People's Money: "The best... buggy whip you ever saw!"
Demolition Man: {In the future}, "Now all restaurants are Taco Bell."

Hard-drive engineering can't push the performance envelope because they're simply not in the same class as solid state storage. Thus, the emphasis shifts from product development to market segmentation to maximize profits.
· R7-5800X, Liquid Freezer II 280, RoG Strix X570-E, 64GiB PC4-28800, Suprim Liquid RTX4090, 2TB SX8200Pro +4TB S860 +NAS, Define 7 Compact, Super Flower SF-1000F14TP, S3220DGF +32UD99, FC900R OE, DeathAdder2
 
just brew it!
Administrator
Posts: 54500
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: Which 4TB drive?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 8:44 pm

JustAnEngineer wrote:
Other People's Money: "The best... buggy whip you ever saw!"
Demolition Man: {In the future}, "Now all restaurants are Taco Bell."

Hard-drive engineering can't push the performance envelope because they're simply not in the same class as solid state storage. Thus, the emphasis shifts from product development to market segmentation to maximize profits.

They can still push the capacity envelope. But that's harder to do than just re-spinning existing tech 10 different ways.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
Captain Ned
Global Moderator
Posts: 28704
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: Which 4TB drive?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 9:06 pm

just brew it! wrote:
I stand by my Taco Bell analogy! :D

As long as it doesn't have a Taco Bell aftereffect.
What we have today is way too much pluribus and not enough unum.
 
Deanjo
Graphmaster Gerbil
Posts: 1212
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:31 am

Re: Which 4TB drive?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 9:25 pm

just brew it! wrote:
OK. so it's... another name for the RE? Or a Red with a higher spindle speed and longer warranty? I stand by my Taco Bell analogy! :D


Well with the RE drives they are pre-load tested (abused), offer some encryption capabilities, the motor shaft is secured at both ends, and has a higher MTBF (1.2 Million vs 1 Million) so there are still subtle differences.
 
Flying Fox
Gerbil God
Posts: 25690
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 2:19 am
Contact:

Re: Which 4TB drive?

Mon Jan 05, 2015 12:50 am

just brew it! wrote:
ptsant wrote:
Are you sure that JBOD is as fragile as RAID0? I always did RAID1 so I don't have any experience with that but I imagined that JBOD would still allow one to access file on the non-corrupt disk.

No... you'll have a slightly better chance (as in, higher than zero) of being able to recover *some* of the files in the case of a JBOD failure, but it'll likely take a non-trivial amount of effort. Best to plan on all of the data being toasted either way if one of the drives fails.

If you want the data on the other drive to remain intact when one fails, you really want to configure them as two separate volumes.
In "pure" JBOD you can still get files split across the 2 physical drives meaning recovering them would be difficult. However, if you do JBOD using something like NTFS mounting the entire volume to a subfolder, then both of your drives are still maintained separately (with the same capacity limitation of both drives). Does Linux have something similar?

just brew it! wrote:
Waco wrote:
Chrispy_ wrote:
God yes. Greens can't be RAIDed at all they just drop out constantly.

Any desktop drive without TLER will do that. WD Greens are no worse than any others (minus the ones that park the heads incredibly aggressively).

...and the Greens were the ones that started the whole "aggressive head parking" thing.

And most Reds are parking heads now too. :( Not sure about the Pro's though.
The Model M is not for the faint of heart. You either like them or hate them.

Gerbils unite! Fold for UnitedGerbilNation, team 2630.
 
just brew it!
Administrator
Posts: 54500
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: Which 4TB drive?

Mon Jan 05, 2015 7:14 am

Flying Fox wrote:
In "pure" JBOD you can still get files split across the 2 physical drives meaning recovering them would be difficult. However, if you do JBOD using something like NTFS mounting the entire volume to a subfolder, then both of your drives are still maintained separately (with the same capacity limitation of both drives).

Not quite sure what you mean here. If you create a spanned volume (which is what I think of when I hear "JBOD"), then Windows creates a single filesystem across both drives; they are not "maintained separately". So even if the data for a given file doesn't cross the boundary, the filesystem won't mount if one of the drives is dead, making recovery difficult. If the bad drive only has a few defective sectors and still spins up, you may be able to mount the spanned filesystem and pull most of your data (including data on the bad drive) off, but this should not be counted on.

I guess there's a second interpretation of JBOD, which is just mounting logically separate filesystems to different folders with junction points (or even the SUBST command); it sounds like this what you mean? I never really considered this to be JBOD, though (in retrospect, after Googling a bit) it appears that this interpretation is not uncommon; mea culpa!

Flying Fox wrote:
Does Linux have something similar?

I guess the answer is "yes" even though I'm not quite sure what you meant, since Linux supports both approaches. Spanned volumes are supported via the Linux LVM (Logical Volume Manager) subsystem. Mounting individual filesystems to existing folders is in fact the "normal" way of handling multiple disks in Linux, since it has no concept of drive letters (all of your storage is one big directory hierarchy).
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
ptsant
Gerbil XP
Topic Author
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:45 pm

Re: Which 4TB drive?

Mon Jan 05, 2015 10:29 am

just brew it! wrote:
ptsant wrote:
After some more thought, maybe the Red 6 TB is a good choice. Space should be enough (I estimate 4-5TB for my current project). The advantage is less power/noise and lower probability of failure with respect to RAID0/JBOD.

Maybe, maybe not. Top-end capacity typically means lots of platters and heads, which means more wear and tear on the spindle motor, bearings, and head actuator. Seek noise will typically be a little higher as well since the head actuator needs to move more mass around.


Hm, this is getting quite complicated. The fact is, I've been using only WD RE drives (4 of them) for the last 7 years and never had any problem at all, despite some of them running 24/7. So, I feel quite confident buying WD RE. However, the price is quite high. That's why I'm asking here. Heat and noise is not a problem (the CPU will be working at 100% for weeks, so the 10W of the HD are not the biggest issue).

So, for my 4-6TB needs, the safest choice would be WD RE or HGST Ultrastar? Or should I take the risk and buy the much cheaper Red 6TB? The difference is almost double the money for 33% more space.

To make it simple: 2xRE 4TB at 560 CHF or 1xRed 6TB at 300 CHF?
Image
 
frumper15
Gerbil XP
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: Which 4TB drive?

Mon Jan 05, 2015 10:49 am

What about a 6TB HGST? Maybe the best option if 6TB is big enough - 7200RPM for performance like the RE with good track record and a single drive with less heat and noise than 2x drives
http://www.amazon.com/HGST-Western-Digi ... 00O0M5QK8/
i7-8086K | Z370 AORUS GAMING WIFI | 32GB DDR4-2400 | EVGA GTX 1080 Ti | 512GB 960 Pro | 27" Dell 2560x1440 Gsync | Fractal R6 | Seasonic Focus Plus 850W | Win10 Pro x64.
 
Chrispy_
Maximum Gerbil
Posts: 4670
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 3:49 pm
Location: Europe, most frequently London.

Re: Which 4TB drive?

Mon Jan 05, 2015 4:59 pm

just brew it! wrote:
...and the Greens were the ones that started the whole "aggressive head parking" thing.


QFT; This is what I was getting at.
Congratulations, you've noticed that this year's signature is based on outdated internet memes; CLICK HERE NOW to experience this unforgettable phenomenon. This sentence is just filler and as irrelevant as my signature.
 
Flying Fox
Gerbil God
Posts: 25690
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 2:19 am
Contact:

Re: Which 4TB drive?

Mon Jan 05, 2015 5:28 pm

Chrispy_ wrote:
just brew it! wrote:
...and the Greens were the ones that started the whole "aggressive head parking" thing.


QFT; This is what I was getting at.

The Reds are doing it now too.
The Model M is not for the faint of heart. You either like them or hate them.

Gerbils unite! Fold for UnitedGerbilNation, team 2630.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
GZIP: On