I'll be building a new NAS in a few months. Any chance they'll have 8GB reds out by then? The Seagate model's review score on Newegg makes me nervous and HGST's $600ish 8tb drives are too rich for my blood.
I currently have a FreeNAS box with 6 Seagate 4TB NAS drives and 6 Seagate 500GB desktop drives. I have already had to replace 2 of the 4TB drives in 8 months. Backblaze stats show the Seagate and WD drives to have similar reliability, with HGST being significantly better. If I ever end up expanding, I'll definitely be going with HGST.
Statistics from backblaze confirms that Seagate cleaned up their act after that 3TB disaster. For 8TB drive though we won't get reliability data for another quarter at least (and that's only if those drives are really bad, longer if they are decent). Rating on newegg is statistically insignificant so far. Plus the drive is downmoded there for not having 3rd mounting hole.
WD, is for the most part, consistently reliable. Seagate has had some spotty models, and Hitachi, especially those Coolspin models, never cease to amaze me with their excellent reliability. Unfortunately they are getting harder to come by...
If you are putting this into a somewhat standard NAS box using raid 5 or 6, I would not buy any high capacity drive that has a read error of less than 10^15. Google some articles on this... you are playing roulette with the data on the whole array as a rebuild on an array with all 8TB drives that have read error rates of 10^14 is almost certain to encounter an error, bringing down the whole array.
I wouldnt chance it with Raid 6 either on 8TB drives. 10 ^15 or better is the only way to go if you care about the data and don't want to take undue risks. But with the Red Pro drives now being 10 ^15, it gives consumers a choice without buying enterprise drives.
Here are the specs for red pro and raid edition drives -
red pro - 1M mtbf, 600,000 load cycle, <10 in 10^15 non recoverable read errors
raid edition - 2M mtbf, 600,000 load cycle, <1 in 10^15 non recoverable read errors
The old specs mentioned <1 in 10^14 non recoverable read errors for their non enterprise line. Could this be good marketing to bring the red pro drive to 10^15 terms rather than 10^14? Probably somebody better at math could answer that.
I would like to have seen an update to the 2.5" lineup of drives. With Seagate already shipping a 4TB 15mm z-height 2.5" drive, smaller form factor NASes are quickly becoming a reality.
The same way other computing devices benefit. They consume less power and take up less space. How much these matter depends on circumstances. The perspective of a single person in a big home (or just one that looks like a computer store) living somewhere where electricity costs 10c/kWh is very different than that of someone married to a mundane living in a very small apartment and paying 40c/kWh.
Hmm, is that statement true? It depends quite a lot.
Let's say, you need 8 TB of storage. You could achieve that with a single 3.5 drive, or 4 2.5 inch drives. I don't find 2.5 drives with capacity higher than 2 TB in nearby retailers or newegg. And surely, anything more will for the time being come at a hefty price premium.
I am not convinced that 4 x 2.5 inch drives will neither take less space, nor use less power, nor produce less noise, nor release less heat than a single 3.5 inch drive.
On top of that, you increase the price significantly, and also the risk of failure quadruples if you combine them in a single volume.
Now, I assume when we are talking NAS we are talking more capacity than the storage you will get in a typical consumer device. Since 2.5 inch drives come in lower capacities and at higher cost, I really don't think it is worth it. Those drives are meant to go into portable devices, and NAS is not that.
Sure, that all depends on the capacity you need. For some strange reason everyone seems to assume that only the highest available capacity is the one everybody wants/needs. There're many applications where that is in incorrect assumption which is also supported by the fact that almost no one is rebuilding all their RAID arrays with every new size coming out...
Using smaller capacity (but more) drives can have a lot of advantages including price, reliability, more suitable data partitioning and potentially performance, faster RAID rebuilding, more RAID level options etc. ... so it *ALWAYS* depends on the specific usecase.
In our data center we're currently using mostly 2TB 3.5" drives (+ 2.5" SSDs) right now with no intention to upgrade to 8TB, personally I'd never use anything else than SSDs and 2.5" HDDs for storage anymore.
Yeah, either that, or you can save yourself some money, get better price / capacity and simply put your NAS somewhere in your house where noise won't be an issue, and forget about the silencer box.
By the time the price per GB of the 2.5" HDDs will match the 3.5" ones, both will be pointless because SSDs would probably be cheaper per GB and with higher capacity. For now it would be best to stick to the 3.5" drives for their better price per GB and higher performance. Right now you wouldn't be saving much space. Even if we ignore parody (lets just talk about raw capacity). 4x6TB (3.5") vs 12x2TB (2.5). Your power consumption will increase by going with more small drives, and if you need 12 sata ports, you will need a motherboard with more sata ports (can be found if you take a server ITX motherboard) or a PCIe card. So you can get it but it will be better to use the first solution. Also if you're going with 12 HDDs in a single hardware raid array, you will need a not so cheap raid card. If you're going with a ZFS configuration it would be fine.. I don't know about that 4TB drive, is it shingled or not? If its shingled its worthless for a NAS and will be mostly useful for cold archive or an application which rarely rewrites on previously written content. That's the reason I didn't compare the 8TB 3.5", right now all 8TB drives are shingled.
Yup, Scorpio Black at 750GB 7200RPM, Scorpio Blue at 1TB (being 9.5mm thick) at 5400RPM is getting old, real quick. The Samsung M9T 9.5mm 2TB and the Hitachi Travelstar 7K1000 9.5mm 1TB 7200RPM drive is superior.
With what drive has WD (not HGST) responded to Seagates 8 TB drive? Still waiting for them to wake up, while Seagate recently again announced even bigger drives.
Seagate's 8TB drives are shingled (SMR) and are not intended to be used in a NAS. They are meant for archive or anything that would rarely rewrite data on the drive.
You didn't ask any questions, just a rethoric remark, some sappy imbecility, besides that just retreat back to the rotten, slimefilled shithole you crawled out, you self serving, self seeking, selfish egoistic brick. Guess what, nobody cares or gives a fuck about you or your shitty remarks or if something has anything to do with your intention of your muddleheaded self righteous blathering, just fuck off.
If the 6TB is 29% faster than the 4TB, how much faster is it than a 1TB? In other words, if my PC is filled with 1TB HDDs, would I get a performance bump simply by replacing them with a larger capacity drive (or drives)? (Assume that I want more capacity than SSDs offer economically)
That depends. Are your 1TB drives in RAID? Which 1TB drives do you own? If they're the latest WD Black, then any single read/write task you perform to one of your 1TB drives would have significantly higher throughput on the 6TB drive. Assuming the published performance gain is accurate, that would be ~230MBps max sequential read/write.
I work on a single Seagate 1TB 7200RPM drive that's about half full, no RAID, I just have a nightly incremental backup of it onto two others.
But I need to check what version when I get home. Saw some reviews saying the 7200.12 was lousy but the 7200.14 was almost as fast (150-200MB/s) as this WD one. I have a nasty feeling I've got the 7200.12.
I guess I commented because this is an angle I don't see the HDD manufacturers normally pushing: that upgrading your conventional drive to a bigger one might give you a speed increase. For someone like me, the idea of a 30% speedup just from using a larger conventional HDD is quite appealing.
A 1.5tb per platter drive reads more data in one revolution than a 1tb per platter drive, by a significant percentage.
However, if you have a range of drives with 1.5tb platters (say, a 1.5tb, a 3tb, a 4tb, and a 6tb), they will all perform similarly, although the 4tb may have an advantage by being short stroked.
A single 4 or 6 TB drive will be faster than a single 1 TB drive. But with multiple drives you can read / write to many simultaneously without performance penalty Whereas with a single drive things will slow down significantly in such a scenario, if it is to occur. Even without raid you can get more throughput with multiple drives. Also, there is the reliability factor, with a big drive, a failure will cost you all your data.
The smartest thing to do is buy multiple drives with good reliability that have the best price to capacity ratio, currently 2 and 3 TB drives are in the sweet spot. The performance difference will be negligible when it comes to stuff that you would typically put on bulk storage - media such as video, music or images. Even games are IMO not worth it putting on something as fast as SSD - the load time improvement is nowhere near the cost difference.
Thanks, so if I'm actually working on a single drive (no RAID - others are just nightly backups), then the bigger disk might be faster, but I'll have to compare the specific benchmark numbers with my existing one to see if it's worth doing.
I've not gone for RAID yet because it means taking some extra care transferring those HDDs into a new PC (and I certainly can't transfer them individually!) If it weren't for that, I'd go for something like RAID5 (or 10, but not 0), since I still want the redundancy.
Depends on the platter density. You could have a 1TB drive that has one 1TB platter so very possibly no increase versus the 4TB four 1TB platter drive. I've found that doubling of the platter density is maybe 20-30% more throughput, max. You'll need about a 40TB hard drive at 5 platters to equal the throughput of a SATA 3 SSD with quick guessing.
I have gone the no service and error route with WD Red Drives in the past and will be sticking with their obvious replacements HGST Deskstar NAS which I have several at a better price and never had a failure. Yes the 6TB plus filled with the scotch of your choice if that fails!
A "creative professional" with even half a clue would use Enterprise SATA or SAS, not a WD Black. And the one Red I bought died really quickly, never buying another.
QFT. I've never bought anything but WD RE drives and I have never had a failure. They are just built better. Even a really old RE-GP model is still going strong. I'd never waste money on a non-RE drive. Sure, the "I" in RAID stands for "inexpensive", but I don't want to waste time and ultimately money swapping cheap, failing drives in and out and rebuilding arrays all the time just because the RAID is a safety net for their poorer build quality.
And the bigger they are the more likely they are to fail. 1GB to 2GB drives are the sensible reliability sweet spot still, although if I had the cash and really needed massive storage space I'd switch up to the 8GB HGST Helium-filled ones which are proving even better AFAICT from reviews and anacdotes, and are the same price per GB or less as RE drives.
How many platters, 6? Wonder how much faster it is than Segate's 6TB 7200RPM ST6000DX000 drive if any. But someone on StorageReview said it's 5 platters probably but nobody knows for sure. Could be 5 at 1.2TB/platter like the 6TB Caviar Green. Good throughput then!
BTW, the Scorpio Black ,WD's 7200RPM laptop drive, it has been stuck at 750GB for the past 4 years! Come on! At least get to 1TB @ 7200RPM like Hitachi has had for about 2 years.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
51 Comments
Back to Article
DanNeely - Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - link
I'll be building a new NAS in a few months. Any chance they'll have 8GB reds out by then? The Seagate model's review score on Newegg makes me nervous and HGST's $600ish 8tb drives are too rich for my blood.abhaxus - Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - link
I currently have a FreeNAS box with 6 Seagate 4TB NAS drives and 6 Seagate 500GB desktop drives. I have already had to replace 2 of the 4TB drives in 8 months. Backblaze stats show the Seagate and WD drives to have similar reliability, with HGST being significantly better. If I ever end up expanding, I'll definitely be going with HGST.slideruler - Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - link
Statistics from backblaze confirms that Seagate cleaned up their act after that 3TB disaster. For 8TB drive though we won't get reliability data for another quarter at least (and that's only if those drives are really bad, longer if they are decent). Rating on newegg is statistically insignificant so far. Plus the drive is downmoded there for not having 3rd mounting hole.Samus - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
WD, is for the most part, consistently reliable. Seagate has had some spotty models, and Hitachi, especially those Coolspin models, never cease to amaze me with their excellent reliability. Unfortunately they are getting harder to come by...Dunkurs1987 - Wednesday, April 20, 2016 - link
Very fast we have got to 8TB and even 10TB drives. But seems that RED PRO 6TB is the best of all of them. Here is 8TB drive comparison : http://www.span.com/compare/WD6002FFWX-vs-ST8000VN...hifiaudio2 - Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - link
If you are putting this into a somewhat standard NAS box using raid 5 or 6, I would not buy any high capacity drive that has a read error of less than 10^15. Google some articles on this... you are playing roulette with the data on the whole array as a rebuild on an array with all 8TB drives that have read error rates of 10^14 is almost certain to encounter an error, bringing down the whole array.extide - Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - link
Thats really only an issue with RAID5, not with RAID 6.hifiaudio2 - Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - link
I wouldnt chance it with Raid 6 either on 8TB drives. 10 ^15 or better is the only way to go if you care about the data and don't want to take undue risks. But with the Red Pro drives now being 10 ^15, it gives consumers a choice without buying enterprise drives.pilliai_hfx - Monday, August 24, 2015 - link
Here are the specs for red pro and raid edition drives -red pro - 1M mtbf, 600,000 load cycle, <10 in 10^15 non recoverable read errors
raid edition - 2M mtbf, 600,000 load cycle, <1 in 10^15 non recoverable read errors
The old specs mentioned <1 in 10^14 non recoverable read errors for their non enterprise line. Could this be good marketing to
bring the red pro drive to 10^15 terms rather than 10^14? Probably somebody better at math could answer that.
eek2121 - Monday, August 24, 2015 - link
OR you could be like any normal person and back up your data. :)creed3020 - Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - link
I would like to have seen an update to the 2.5" lineup of drives. With Seagate already shipping a 4TB 15mm z-height 2.5" drive, smaller form factor NASes are quickly becoming a reality.ddriver - Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - link
How does NAS benefit from small form factor? Network attached implies non-portability. 2.5 inch drives cost more and offer lower capacity.DanNeely - Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - link
The same way other computing devices benefit. They consume less power and take up less space. How much these matter depends on circumstances. The perspective of a single person in a big home (or just one that looks like a computer store) living somewhere where electricity costs 10c/kWh is very different than that of someone married to a mundane living in a very small apartment and paying 40c/kWh.ddriver - Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - link
Hmm, is that statement true? It depends quite a lot.Let's say, you need 8 TB of storage. You could achieve that with a single 3.5 drive, or 4 2.5 inch drives. I don't find 2.5 drives with capacity higher than 2 TB in nearby retailers or newegg. And surely, anything more will for the time being come at a hefty price premium.
I am not convinced that 4 x 2.5 inch drives will neither take less space, nor use less power, nor produce less noise, nor release less heat than a single 3.5 inch drive.
On top of that, you increase the price significantly, and also the risk of failure quadruples if you combine them in a single volume.
Now, I assume when we are talking NAS we are talking more capacity than the storage you will get in a typical consumer device. Since 2.5 inch drives come in lower capacities and at higher cost, I really don't think it is worth it. Those drives are meant to go into portable devices, and NAS is not that.
modulusshift - Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - link
That's exactly what the update would address, were it to happen.name99 - Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - link
WD sell 3TB 2.5" external drives. (My Passport Ultra)For some strange reason they do not (yet?) appear to sell these same drives as bare drives.
ddriver - Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - link
That's because they are thicker and would not fit where 2.5 inch drives are supposed to.Daniel Egger - Saturday, August 22, 2015 - link
Sure, that all depends on the capacity you need. For some strange reason everyone seems to assume that only the highest available capacity is the one everybody wants/needs. There're many applications where that is in incorrect assumption which is also supported by the fact that almost no one is rebuilding all their RAID arrays with every new size coming out...Using smaller capacity (but more) drives can have a lot of advantages including price, reliability, more suitable data partitioning and potentially performance, faster RAID rebuilding, more RAID level options etc. ... so it *ALWAYS* depends on the specific usecase.
In our data center we're currently using mostly 2TB 3.5" drives (+ 2.5" SSDs) right now with no intention to upgrade to 8TB, personally I'd never use anything else than SSDs and 2.5" HDDs for storage anymore.
Samus - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
It's like the ITX arguement. Like women's clothing, the smaller it is, the more expensive.I personally think 4 bay 2.5" NAS with 16TB of storage in something the size of a loaf of bread using <20 watts is pretty amazing.
The same way those new X99 ITX boards are just amazing. The amount of power in something that can fit in a shoebox is remarkable.
eek2121 - Monday, August 24, 2015 - link
I don't get it...I have an 8 bay NAS that holds 3.5" drives, and it's the size of a loaf of bread...or are you getting confused again?ruthan - Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - link
I personally using them for less noise - HDD 2,5 could be inserted into 3,5 HDD silencer box, for 3,5 HDD you need 5,25 silence box and position.ddriver - Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - link
Yeah, either that, or you can save yourself some money, get better price / capacity and simply put your NAS somewhere in your house where noise won't be an issue, and forget about the silencer box.DIYEyal - Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - link
By the time the price per GB of the 2.5" HDDs will match the 3.5" ones, both will be pointless because SSDs would probably be cheaper per GB and with higher capacity. For now it would be best to stick to the 3.5" drives for their better price per GB and higher performance.Right now you wouldn't be saving much space. Even if we ignore parody (lets just talk about raw capacity).
4x6TB (3.5") vs 12x2TB (2.5). Your power consumption will increase by going with more small drives, and if you need 12 sata ports, you will need a motherboard with more sata ports (can be found if you take a server ITX motherboard) or a PCIe card. So you can get it but it will be better to use the first solution. Also if you're going with 12 HDDs in a single hardware raid array, you will need a not so cheap raid card. If you're going with a ZFS configuration it would be fine..
I don't know about that 4TB drive, is it shingled or not? If its shingled its worthless for a NAS and will be mostly useful for cold archive or an application which rarely rewrites on previously written content. That's the reason I didn't compare the 8TB 3.5", right now all 8TB drives are shingled.
danwat1234 - Thursday, August 20, 2015 - link
Yup, Scorpio Black at 750GB 7200RPM, Scorpio Blue at 1TB (being 9.5mm thick) at 5400RPM is getting old, real quick. The Samsung M9T 9.5mm 2TB and the Hitachi Travelstar 7K1000 9.5mm 1TB 7200RPM drive is superior.danwat1234 - Thursday, August 20, 2015 - link
Scorpio black at 750GB for the past 4 years! Crazyslideruler - Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - link
Judging by how long it took for WD to respond to Seagate's 8TB drive with anything reasonable, WD were caught with their pants down.hlmcompany - Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - link
Which Seagate 8TB drive are you referring to?Beaver M. - Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - link
With what drive has WD (not HGST) responded to Seagates 8 TB drive?Still waiting for them to wake up, while Seagate recently again announced even bigger drives.
DIYEyal - Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - link
Seagate's 8TB drives are shingled (SMR) and are not intended to be used in a NAS. They are meant for archive or anything that would rarely rewrite data on the drive.Beaver M. - Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - link
Irrelevant information to my question.Jerkkiller - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
You didn't ask any questions, just a rethoric remark, some sappy imbecility, besides that just retreat back to the rotten, slimefilled shithole you crawled out, you self serving, self seeking, selfish egoistic brick.Guess what, nobody cares or gives a fuck about you or your shitty remarks or if something has anything to do with your intention of your muddleheaded self righteous blathering, just fuck off.
tamalero - Monday, August 24, 2015 - link
Well, a few people still cared and replied.Jerkkiller - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
Thank you for providing this informative, factual, information, which represents an important distinction regarding the applicable usage scenarios.slideruler - Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - link
With what drive has WD (not HGST) responded to Seagates 8 TB drive? - Well, my point exactly.hlmcompany - Thursday, August 20, 2015 - link
Should WD be in a hurry to respond to Seagates 5900rpm Nearline drive when their HGST division already has a 7,200rpm 8TB Datacenter/NAS unit out?Jerkkiller - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
Sappy, imbecile blathering.stephenbrooks - Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - link
If the 6TB is 29% faster than the 4TB, how much faster is it than a 1TB? In other words, if my PC is filled with 1TB HDDs, would I get a performance bump simply by replacing them with a larger capacity drive (or drives)? (Assume that I want more capacity than SSDs offer economically)dragonsqrrl - Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - link
That depends. Are your 1TB drives in RAID? Which 1TB drives do you own? If they're the latest WD Black, then any single read/write task you perform to one of your 1TB drives would have significantly higher throughput on the 6TB drive. Assuming the published performance gain is accurate, that would be ~230MBps max sequential read/write.stephenbrooks - Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - link
I work on a single Seagate 1TB 7200RPM drive that's about half full, no RAID, I just have a nightly incremental backup of it onto two others.But I need to check what version when I get home. Saw some reviews saying the 7200.12 was lousy but the 7200.14 was almost as fast (150-200MB/s) as this WD one. I have a nasty feeling I've got the 7200.12.
I guess I commented because this is an angle I don't see the HDD manufacturers normally pushing: that upgrading your conventional drive to a bigger one might give you a speed increase. For someone like me, the idea of a 30% speedup just from using a larger conventional HDD is quite appealing.
rtho782 - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
It's the side benefit of an increase in density.A 1.5tb per platter drive reads more data in one revolution than a 1tb per platter drive, by a significant percentage.
However, if you have a range of drives with 1.5tb platters (say, a 1.5tb, a 3tb, a 4tb, and a 6tb), they will all perform similarly, although the 4tb may have an advantage by being short stroked.
ddriver - Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - link
A single 4 or 6 TB drive will be faster than a single 1 TB drive. But with multiple drives you can read / write to many simultaneously without performance penalty Whereas with a single drive things will slow down significantly in such a scenario, if it is to occur. Even without raid you can get more throughput with multiple drives. Also, there is the reliability factor, with a big drive, a failure will cost you all your data.The smartest thing to do is buy multiple drives with good reliability that have the best price to capacity ratio, currently 2 and 3 TB drives are in the sweet spot. The performance difference will be negligible when it comes to stuff that you would typically put on bulk storage - media such as video, music or images. Even games are IMO not worth it putting on something as fast as SSD - the load time improvement is nowhere near the cost difference.
stephenbrooks - Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - link
Thanks, so if I'm actually working on a single drive (no RAID - others are just nightly backups), then the bigger disk might be faster, but I'll have to compare the specific benchmark numbers with my existing one to see if it's worth doing.I've not gone for RAID yet because it means taking some extra care transferring those HDDs into a new PC (and I certainly can't transfer them individually!) If it weren't for that, I'd go for something like RAID5 (or 10, but not 0), since I still want the redundancy.
rtho782 - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
3x4tb blacks in RAID 0 for my steam directory and other storage here, HDtach gives me sequental reads in the realms of SSD speeds, over 500mbyte/sec.danwat1234 - Thursday, August 20, 2015 - link
Depends on the platter density. You could have a 1TB drive that has one 1TB platter so very possibly no increase versus the 4TB four 1TB platter drive.I've found that doubling of the platter density is maybe 20-30% more throughput, max. You'll need about a 40TB hard drive at 5 platters to equal the throughput of a SATA 3 SSD with quick guessing.
ummduh - Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - link
The pricing actually seems downright reasonable for a change.[email protected] - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
I have gone the no service and error route with WD Red Drives in the past and will be sticking with their obvious replacements HGST Deskstar NAS which I have several at a better price and never had a failure. Yes the 6TB plus filled with the scotch of your choice if that fails!mapesdhs - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
A "creative professional" with even half a clue would use Enterprise SATA or SAS, not a WD Black.And the one Red I bought died really quickly, never buying another.
asmian - Thursday, August 20, 2015 - link
QFT. I've never bought anything but WD RE drives and I have never had a failure. They are just built better. Even a really old RE-GP model is still going strong. I'd never waste money on a non-RE drive. Sure, the "I" in RAID stands for "inexpensive", but I don't want to waste time and ultimately money swapping cheap, failing drives in and out and rebuilding arrays all the time just because the RAID is a safety net for their poorer build quality.And the bigger they are the more likely they are to fail. 1GB to 2GB drives are the sensible reliability sweet spot still, although if I had the cash and really needed massive storage space I'd switch up to the 8GB HGST Helium-filled ones which are proving even better AFAICT from reviews and anacdotes, and are the same price per GB or less as RE drives.
asmian - Thursday, August 20, 2015 - link
GB -> TB. Where's the frickin' Edit button?/rant
danwat1234 - Thursday, August 20, 2015 - link
How many platters, 6? Wonder how much faster it is than Segate's 6TB 7200RPM ST6000DX000 drive if any. But someone on StorageReview said it's 5 platters probably but nobody knows for sure. Could be 5 at 1.2TB/platter like the 6TB Caviar Green. Good throughput then!BTW, the Scorpio Black ,WD's 7200RPM laptop drive, it has been stuck at 750GB for the past 4 years! Come on! At least get to 1TB @ 7200RPM like Hitachi has had for about 2 years.
Montago - Monday, August 24, 2015 - link
So...Have they fixed the issue of LLC in their RED series ??I have 4x 3TB with a LLC of 600K+ and growing :(