ironwolf vs wd red power consumption

Great article as always. People are seeing very poor performance with these SMR drives and Synology as well, even in normal operation. This is the revision of firmware that came on both of our drives. I had such a great week too. More trolls on STH when you get to these mass audience articles. So, if anyone needs to know WHAT INTERNAL DRIVE MODEL they have in their WD EXTERNAL ENCLOSURES, install and COPY PAST the info to the clipboard! Just got off the phone with a Seagate rep. And I’m fuming right now. The RAIDZ resilver test is of particular interest, since the WD Red drive is marketed as a NAS type drive suitable for arrays of up to 8 disks. Testing the WD Red 4TB SMR WD40EFAX Drive. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Any chance anyone has a link to that? Either is bad. I think this is the link you are looking for: Period! Would be worthwhile to at least update the following articles with a warning to avoid SMR HDDs when using ZFS:, A great example is WD Red has a slower rotation speed than Seagate IronWolf so you can't transfer files as quickly. This is a a great article. Stupid WD support… ). Ars articles always lack the depth of real reporting, but do provide an entertainment factor and many times the commenters have much more insight (which is what I love finding and reading). Granted, this is a good article that demonstrates what happens when SMR cache is filled and disks don’t have enough idle time to recover, but I doubt this happens a lot in the real life, and your advice to avoid SMR does not follow from the data you’re obtained. I’m fine with the drive makers selling SMR drives. We are using a third party service to manage subscriptions so you can unsubscribe at any time. If you mix drives, the slower ones tend to dictate performance more times than not. The drives perform terrible ever since day 1, causing the whole PC to appear unresponsive for minutes the moment 1 file in the Steam library is rewritten for game updates. And it looks like WD got caught and now have a class-action law suit brewing:, I just ordered 3 WD 4TB Red for a new NAS and had no clue! Clearly the problem is with the label on the drive. That’s why STH is a gem. That 9 day and almost 14-hour rebuild means that using the WD Red 4TB SMR drive inadvertently in an array would lead to your data being vulnerable for around 9 days longer than the WD Red 4TB CMR drive or Seagate IronWolf. Dear Western Digital, you thought you could get away with it because a basic benchmark does not show much difference OR you were not even aware of the issue because you did not test them with RAID., Form to join the class: Still, this is a good indicator of the drive working through its internal data management processes and impacting performance. yes indeed they only compare rebuilding while there is no other access. Generally, each tray can house either a 3.5-inch (desktop) or a 2.5-inch (laptop) drive. Learn how your comment data is processed. When that NAS readiness was put to the test the drive performed spectacularly badly. Had no idea this was a thing but glad I googled it now. I thought it was good in explanation, but it’s odd. Robert – I generally look for low-cost CMR drives, and expect that they will fail on me. Unfortunately, while the SMR WD Red performed respectably in the previous benchmarks, the RAIDZ resilver test proved to be another matter entirely. All I can conclude is “don’t replace failed disks in RAIDZ arrays with SMR disks that just came out of heavy load and did not have time to flush their cache. During this time, scrubs were disabled for the pool and resilvering priority was completely disabled. Even with a new motherboard the problem persisted. For my use, (it was the only 8TB drive on the market for a reasonable price at that time), it works well. I thought it was good in explanation, but it’s odd. The WD Red Pro also has a higher potential cache than the IronWolf … Either is bad. I know I’m being a d!ck here but the video has a much more thorough impact assessment while this is more showing the testing behind what’s being said in the video. Data is written on magnetic tracks that are side-by-side, do not overlap, and write operations on one track do not affect its neighbors. P.S. I’m really frustrated. But great test methodology STH. Purpose built for multi-user NAS environments, IronWolf is perfect for teams needing to store more and work faster. would be interesting to see RAID rebuild time on a more conventional RAID setup. Compare this with the “INFECTED” SMR drive list, and you’re good to go! We say 9 days and we’re understating the problem, which in my mind is the more defensible position. Get the best of STH delivered weekly to your inbox. And upon further investigation I found out that these disks are SMR. Replacing with 1 SMR disk. The short version is that they advise against use of these drives. AFAIK, the SMR Reds support the TRIM command. Why is that? Do I need an expensive CMR (Ironwolf Helium), a “cheaper” SMR Red NAS drive or will a standard barracuda 8TB SMR “Archive Drive suffice”, for Media (Plex) and Photos. Also, if you trim the entire disk (and maybe wait a little), does it return to initial performance? It says look to WD for more information and WD has not, over the course of the ensuing month, provided an update. That’s for sure! CONCLUSION: one more checkbox to check when buying drives, not SMR? hey thanks for the quick reply! They were apologetic, but then they dropped the bombshell: All Seagate 2.5″ drives are SMR, they no longer make 2.5″ PMR drives. According to iXsystems, WD Red SMR drives running firmware revision 82.00A82 can cause the drive to enter a failed state during heavy loads using ZFS. The drives are Seagate Barracuda ST500LM050 drives from the same or similar batch. If you round to nearest day it’s 10 days not 9. There @Patrick is saying how much he loves WD Red (CMR) drives while using this to show why he doesn’t like the SMR drives. In PCMark8, the WD40EFAX manages to outperform the CMR WD40EFRX. I received a phone call from the rep this morning. Red HDD’s performance is close to the Green HDD, power consumption is low, low noise, can be suitable for continuous working, featuring NAS ware technology, this technology offers better … But great test methodology STH. The RAIDZ results were so poor that, in my mind, they overshadow the otherwise decent performance of the drive. Finally a reputable site has covered this. Thanks, Will. They were priced like new WD Red 10TB 😉. We had two main areas of testing. The WD40EFAX is the only SMR drive in the comparison and is the focus of the testing. The drives perform terrible ever since day 1, causing the whole PC to appear unresponsive for minutes the moment 1 file in the Steam library is rewritten for game updates. How BIG is it? When data is written on a SMR drive the data on the overlapping tracks will be affected by the write process as well. I passed this article around our office. In the file copy test, the effects of the slower SMR technology starts to show itself a bit. Top Hardware Components for FreeNAS NAS Servers, Top Hardware Components for pfSense Appliances, Top Hardware Components for napp-it and Solarish NAS Servers, Top Picks for Windows Server 2016 Essentials Hardware, The DIY WordPress Hosting Server Hardware Guide, RAID Reliability Calculator | Simple MTTDL Model, Shingled Magnetic Recording Technologies for Large-Capacity Hard Disk Drives, STH Q2 2020 Update A Letter from the Editor, Microchip NVMe-SAS-4-SATA SmartROC 3200 and SmartIOC 2200 Launched, Marvell NativeRAID NVMe RAID for M.2 Solutions Comes to HPE,,,,,,,, With that said, all of the tested drives were disconnected as soon as their previous benchmarks were complete, and before plugging them back in for use in our test NAS array. Most people do not understand how complex SMR is when data needs to be moved from a bottom shingled track. My use case would just be me and my wife, and once the newborn is at age, perhaps him? That blog was posted after we had already embarked upon this adventure. Since my source had 4 x 4TB WD Red CMRs, using a single 8TB drive for backups was perfect. They go way too in-depth on the technical side, but when you’re looking at it, they did a less good experiment. I second the motion to re-test with Linux MD-RAID. It can be… BUT, before that happens, WD is probably using the most demanding customers / environments to TEST SMR tech so they can DEPLOY them in the bigger capacity DRIVES: 8, 10, 12, 14TB and beyond (do not currently exist). These targeted tests are not designed to be comprehensive, but instead, illuminate any obvious differences between the SMR drive and its CMR competitors. How about that? It is called shingled because the data tracks can be visualized like roofing shingles; they partially overlap each other. Given the significant performance and capability differential between the CMR WD Red and the SMR model, they should be different brands or lines rather than just product numbers. These tests were performed as rapidly as possible to minimize drive idle time between them. I get that it’s not OK to hide what the drive actually uses, but on a Media Server/Backup level ? WTF is that??? Very interesting, very disconcerting. Shucking external drives (which are often SMR) is mentioned on both pages. Great piece STH. (2) WDC WD40EFRX-68N32N0 : 4000,7 GB [2/0/0, sa1] – wd You didn’t address this but now I’ve got a problem. Your video and web are usually much closer to 1 another. I am running a 6×2.5″ 500GB RAID10 array for a total of 3TB for my Steam library. I needed 3 x 10TB drives, I went with barely used open-box HSGT He10 on eBay (all 2019 models with around 1,000 hours usage). Spend a little bit more money for the 54/5600 – 7200 RPM drives that are CRM. Get the best of STH delivered weekly to your inbox. It is indeed a good sign to see STH calling BS when it is… BS. I use ZFS on it, with snapshots, so it actually stores multiple backups. Plus, I’d like to see some stock hardware RAID devices tested along the same lines. That is not a recipe for success. Ektich we load test every drive before we replace them in customer systems to ensure we aren’t using a faulty drive. It’s important that you understand MTBF and solid state drive failure rates before making any type of purchases. But, selling SMR as a NAS drive, AND not clearly labeling it, (like Red Lite), that should be criminal. Reds aren’t cheap either, but they’ve previously been good. First, a simple 125GB file copy to test sequential write speeds outside of the context of a benchmark utility. The systems and capacities used will impact results in different ways. Maybe I’m in the minority here. Paste it to a text editor, and voila!!! If you use WD Red CMR drives, you had class-leading performance in this test but if you bought a WD Red … Based on my time with those drives, I was expecting much poorer results. Testing commenced immediately after the drive prep was completed. This has been the standard technology behind hard drive data storage since the mid-2000s. They are using smaller capacity drives with different NAS systems. They are also not doing a realistic test since it seems they are not putting a workload on the NAS during rebuilds? You didn’t address this but now I’ve got a problem. This is one of the more tricky, and less obvious reliability measurements. Initially it worked reasonably fast, but as time went on, it slowed down. Western Digital 4TB WD Red Pro NAS Internal Hard Drive - 7200 RPM Class, SATA 6 Gb/s, CMR, 256 MB Cache, 3.5" - WD4003FFBX ... and lower power consumption. I’m also happy to see you tried on a second drive. Luke, I had followed the story on blocksandfiles (.com) and this is really good that it landed on STH and then followed by a testing report. Very interesting, very disconcerting. If you watch the video, it’s funny. Just read this bollocks: perhaps hardware raid or Linux mdadm etc, instead of just ZFS. We’ve found it fitting to resurrect this WD Blue, Black, Green, Red, and Purple drive naming scheme explanation. I’m fine with the drive makers selling SMR drives. Learn how your comment data is processed. The drives are Seagate Barracuda ST500LM050 drives from the same or similar batch. I’m also happy to see you tried on a second drive. It’s about time a large highly regarded site stepped in by doing more than just covering what Chris did. The performance of the drive seemed to recover relatively quickly if given even brief periods of inactivity. But you are not showing how long does it take for an array to rebuild under those conditions? Western Digital Red HDD are mainly used in 1 to 5 HDDs small and medium scale NAS residential and small enterprise users. I learned this lesson a few years ago with Seagate SMR drives and a 3ware 9650se. I’d like to say thanks to Seagate for keeping CMR IronWolf. Background: And really nobody (you, too) mentions how inefficient this is in case of power consumption as all the reading and writing while moving the data on a top shingle consumes energy while an CMR drive is sleeping all the time. And for SSD be aware that SSD QLC SSD drives will fall back to about 80MBps transfer rate as soon as you fill the small cache that it has built in. IronWolf vs. IronWolf Pro – Features The biggest difference between the two is this: IronWolf is aimed at Home, SOHO and small business NAS drives with up to 8 drive bays. We can hypothesize that there is a negative impact, but it is better to show it. We utilize a lot of ZFS at STH, so in mid-April 2020 we started a project to see if, indeed, there was a difference. I say this because, WD has the same “infected SMR drives” using the well known PMR tech! When that happens the drive has no choice but to write directly to SMR and invoke a performance penalty. On top of which you badly tried to cover it up before finally facing it up. Compare this with the “INFECTED” SMR drive list, and you’re good to go! If you use WD Red CMR drives, you had class-leading performance in this test but if you bought a WD Red SMR drive, perhaps not understanding the difference, you would have another 9 days of potentially catastrophic data vulnerability. We use ZFS heavily and many of our readers do as well. Yes, there is an array running here, due to the brilliance of picking drives from different production runs and vendors, that has half SMR and half CMR.

Igli Tare Stipendio, Calciatore Soprannominato Toro, Banca Dati Finanza 2020, Diffida Ad Adempiere Contratto Preliminare Di Compravendita Fac Simile, Albo Procuratori Sportivi 2020,

Lascia un commento