Im looking on newegg for a Western Digital Black drive (maybe even two for raid 0). My problem is that on newegg there are tons of black drives. All have different pricing even though they are the same capacity. Im wondering if there is a way i can tell if a drive is one of there newest iterations of the drive. I dont want a drive thats new but is from a batch done 3 years ago. I want one from 2014. Might sound overly picky but I want to be ensured im purchasing a drive that has had all of its faults and slight defects worked out. Also, is a software raid on my asus UEFI enabled Board good enough for a basic dual gaming drive?
the only thing i noticed is they've just gotten into hybird ssd drives. If you are going for drive space just go for seagate 4TB unless ur a domestic lover like for ford, chevy guy. IMO they only run 20-40MB faster and are nearly 90 dollars more as well as running as hot as 136 degrees.
Blacks are optimized for RAID and they now come with a 5 year warranty
Also I don't really see how a Black drive can reach 136°C seeing as they run at the standard 7200RPM. (I can see a velociraptor doing that maybe if it wasn't on its heatsink but doubt a Black would be any hotter than any other 7200RPM drive)
As dumb as it may seem to some people I kinda am A WD fanboy. ive had a few drives over the years and the only drives that have lasted me over a year were WD drives and Hatatchi drives (how ever you spell it). Also this new RED drive I have blew me away. A NAS drive that destroys all other drives ive owned? *Amazed* And yeah, I hear blacks are good for raid. I just want to experience "the dark side" *pun*.
I have 2 WD Black in raid 0 for about 10 years now, sure it was pretty fast then, but only 1/2 the speed of SSD nowadays. I shoulda said the WD Blacks get up to 50+ C not 138 C, my bad.
i'm also a big fan of WD HDD
for anyone saying seagate take a look at this https://www.backblaze.com/blog/what-hard-drive-should-i-buy/
now that being said if there are to many different prices for the same drives go there and check the part ID for each one of them that will help you figure out the difference between them
last thing be careful on installing your os on a raid it can cause really stupid and annoying issue
cheap (cheap not as in low end cheap as they are getting very inexpensive in those sizes) 120 or 240 ssd for os and raid hdd for everything else is a much nicer solution
Funny I see graphs like this showing opposite results all the time. If one series/company of drives was truely terrible why are those selling so well, take all graphs with a grain of salt.
Funny though, I have a refurbished laptop Hitachi drive from '08 that refuses to die...
that graph is based on 27,134 consumer-grade drive of 13 different models that are used on a 24/7 basis in a 45 hdd enclosure (46 with the boot drive included) id say that it's reliable for a worst case scenario, at my work i also see a lot more seagate fail then wd, (we dont use enough hitachi or toshiba to really tell) but from experience wd last for ever. i still have a first edition raptor 36.7 gb drive that never miss a beat and md is "22 may 2004"
Hitachi drives are beasts. Wouldn't hesitate getting one.
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/western-digital-internal-hard-drive-wd2003fzex this and you're done.
may read these
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2486820/data-center/read-this-before-you-buy-another-hard-drive.html
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2089464/three-year-27-000-drive-study-reveals-the-most-reliable-hard-drive-makers.html
http://www.zdnet.com/who-makes-the-most-reliable-hard-disk-drives-backblaze-has-updated-its-stats-7000034008/
WD blue has a two year warranty... and may live four to six years
WD black has a five year
most seagates a two year
most SSDs a three year
Samsung 850 proSSD a ten year
Yeah it doesn't look good, but I would take with a grain of salt there are several reasons that could account for this big variance:
- There was a serious issue with the drives at the time of purchasing (their have been some firmware issues with segate drives before) which caused abnormal failure rates.
- The proportion of drives that were server grade i.e. rated for higher transfer rates and more continuous operation was different.
- The proportion of drives with high platter counts varied from manufacturer.
- The workload possibly varried based on manufacturer, with the segate drives being used in more intensive applications that resulted in higher failure rates.
Looking into it more, the failure rates seem to be 3x higher in the seagate drives, but the workload might be completely different, the 4TB drives had a surprisingly much lower failure rate...
the workload is averaging out as those drives are placed in 45 hdd enclosure that are then split into 3 set of 15 drive raid 6 to store there customer data everything is used in parallel from the info you can find they have a very descriptive blog / wiki description
they do not use enterprise drive at all in that section of there server farm (they do use enterprise in the node in charge of the farm and in the money transaction too)
here is what they use
Number of Hard Drives by Model at Backblaze
Model, Size, Number of Drives, Average Age in years, Annual Failure Rate.
Seagate Desktop HDD.15
(ST4000DM000) 4.0TB, 9619, 0.6, 3.0%
HGST Deskstar 7K2000
(HGST HDS722020ALA330) 2.0TB, 4706, 3.4, 1.1%
HGST Deskstar 5K3000
(HGST HDS5C3030ALA630) 3.0TB, 4593, 2.1, 0.7%
Seagate Barracuda 7200.14
(ST3000DM001) 3.0TB, 3846, 1.9, 15.7%
HGST Megascale 4000.B
(HGST HMS5C4040BLE640) 4.0TB, 2884, 0.2, n/a
HGST Deskstar 5K4000
(HGST HDS5C4040ALE630) 4.0TB, 2627, 1.2, 1.2%
Seagate Barracuda LP
(ST31500541AS) 1.5TB, 1699, 4.3, 9.6%
HGST Megascale 4000
(HGST HMS5C4040ALE640) 4.0TB, 1305, 0.1, n/a
HGST Deskstar 7K3000
(HGST HDS723030ALA640) 3.0TB, 1022, 2.6, 1.4%
Western Digital Red
(WDC WD30EFRX) 3.0TB, 776, 0.5, 8.8%
Western Digital Caviar Green
(WDC WD10EADS) 1.0TB, 476, 4.6, 3.8%
Seagate Barracuda 7200.11
(ST31500341AS) 1.5TB, 365, 4.3, 24.9%
Seagate Barracuda XT
(ST33000651AS) 3.0TB, 318, 2.2, 6.7%
note:
- sorry for the poor formatting the table didn't work
- HGST = Hitachi
Didn't see that, so the workload is exactly the same, the data is just spread evenly across those raid sets? I was wondering that since those segate drives are quiet a bit faster. Think I will be going for the 4TB Segate Drives in the future.... Thought they had higher failure rates...
Your sure the workload is the same?
Krawm that graph is a bit skewd. They didn't include WD Blacks, which are more prone to a higher failure than greens and blues. I used to be a WD fanboy so bad, back when other HD did like 50-80MB/s, WD Blacks were doing 100-130s. Nowadays with SSD, they are pretty much caught napping with their pants down.
I know it's been nearly 15 years, but that 400,000 HD recall back in 1999, I still remember it cuz my HD failed that year too, from over-use? They also stopped doing their 5-year warranty back then too cuz there was so much failure rate.
I mean not alot of people still remember that or those post-2000 2TB WD drives with failure rate of 9.51%, I know cuz I had 2 fail on me, one dropped like 2 inches while running and another got powered on when it wasn't flat on the ground and bricked on me.
Even though WD Blacks are dirty I still have 2 1TB HDs in raid 0. Probably the last internal HDs I will ever buy. They are kinda late on the ssd hybrid train but if they keep doing tier branding with only like 20-40MB difference in tiers, I'd rather stick to other SSD and better product models. I'm already sick of Intel & Nvidia pulling this pay 200% more for next tier that does 1% faster computing, such as Xeons & Titan.
In retrospect I didn't know why I was so loayl to WD, it wasn't until I bought other brands and they lasted 2 product lives over WD products did I finally had to admit that other brands could be better. I still have some Seagate & Hitachi from way back in 2000 still running strong, compared to WD which my lastest purchased back in 2008. I'm glad those WD haven't showned any errors yet, so I guess I got lucky.
source:
http://news.cnet.com/Western-Digital-recalls-400,000-hard-drives/2100-1001_3-230785.html
http://www.behardware.com/articles/810-6/taux-pannes-composants.html
not exactly the same but average out to be roughly the same ...
some of the info are here https://www.backblaze.com/blog/enterprise-drive-reliability/ but i cant find the one about the same model being grouped on a per server basis and data distribution being over the whole server farm (basically just like a single hdd new data take the first available space, and is then access when it require to be updated or recovered) it's there somewhere i seen it before (cant find it just cause i'm looking for it you know how it is)
i agree with you on most things beside ... green are the dirt cheap solution of WD they power down to "save power" and then speed up again creating massive wear and tear (unless u edit there firmware and that's just a pain) i didn't get caught in a recall back then i was using maxtor ... they got bought by wd,
ssd are faster but are limited on there capacity for now even if the 16tb are announced at this point anyone with a ssd over 512gb is nuts
i do run a xeon server and i agree with you ... i3 and amd are more and more a viable option with there ecc support
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWD0g43ZoEk
lol i like your video
and yes more expensive doesn't mean faster but 3 extra years of warranty is a lot specially if your a heavy user if your gonna be a light user blue is a no brainer
green are for backup or storage u hardly ever access
raptor ... if u need bigger then a normal ssd and don't want to have to sell your car or something ?? i don't know rofl
yeah i found this video from Tech Yes city.
Somethimes that dude has some very interresting video´s.