I currently have a WD White label drive that I shucked, but also have 2x 16TB WD Red Pro.
Im building a server with 20 drive bays, i wont use them all initially, just looking to build out the initial server.
Should I stick with the WD Red Pros? The 16TBs have been treating me nicely so far, someone recommended 20TB is the sweet spot.
What yall think?
I recently decided on these drives from Toshiba. Toshiba MG10
No nand flash assist, just helium CMR drives that are quite cheaper. Make sure to check the model number if you wanna buy it. MG10ACA20TA Is the normal one.
Thanks for the reply?
Is nand flash assist bad? Also how is the noise level with those drives?
I read into detail of some nand flash assist and they promise like 60TB of lifespan on a 20TB drive, (ex. WD enterprise) so I was concerned about that and just bought 2 MG10. There was 3 drives in stock anyways.
On a QNAP 2 drive NAS, it does make bit of a sound on random reads, but I bet any 120mm fan on a bigger NAS would be louder.
One thing to consider if you’re going to be making a big array is rebuild and scrub times, with the exception of dual actuator drives, bigger hard drives aren’t getting any faster which can make more (relatively) smaller hdds look better.
Depending on how risk adverse you are, you may want to wait to see what the reliability of denser hdds ends up being. Almost all the ~18TB and up hdds use EAMR technology instead of CMR which isn’t as proven.
thank you for this!
Very interesting!
Are you saying CMR isnt prove? Or EAMR isnt proven?
The ones I’ve been using (WD Red Pros) say they are using CMR:
https://www.amazon.com/Western-Digital-20TB-Internal-Drive/dp/B09TBF6GHJ
Actually, let me walk back my statement slightly. It is HAMR HDDs that I think are an unproven technology with a possibility of high future failure rates; because they heat sections of the platter to roughly curie temperature repeatedly and I feel like sooner or later the magnetic coating would delaminate.
I don’t understand how MAMR HDDs work well enough to say they sound unreliable.
Both HAMR and MAMR HDDs fall under the umbrella of EAMR.
Technically EAMR HDDs can be conventional or shingled, but to me when someone says CMR, I assume the drive isn’t EAMR.
Oh wow I dont see that anywhere in any of the specs, I see only CMR or SMR.
WD is kind of opaque on what recording technologies they are using (evidenced by the whole SMR debacle from years ago).
I think the WD Red Pros are using some form of EAMR according to this:
Gotcha, it also says they’re CMR too even though they are EAMR. This stuff is too complicated for me lol
WD reds are sweet, and their performance is undeniable.
but if you are building a 20 drive server, for network traffic, and you’re running some raid, my guess you would not feel much of a difference.
i recently changed a WD red 6 TB for a toshiba 6TB for a raspberrypi NAS, and there’s a ~minor difference in performance, but if you got 20 x whatever, performance, you should be safe, its like saying i hit the target with a bazooka.
spec wise the main difference should be 128mb v 256mb cache, and 5400 v. 7200 rpm performance, pr. disc.
but raided, over network, there should’nt be much of a performance difference.
The sweet spot is GB/$. But that $ must include the cost of each drive bay. Let’s say your server cost $2000, so each drive bay cost $100. Add that to the price of the drive.
16 TB = $320 + $100 = $420. $420/16 TB = $0.263/GB
18 TB = $344 + $100 = $444. $444/18 TB = $0.247/GB
20 TB = $380 + $100 = $480. $480/20 TB = $0.240/GB
22 TB = $420 + $100 = $520. $520/22 TB = $0.236/GB
The sweet spot for WD Red Pro is likely the 22 TB model.