Drive reliability for NAS... now questioning my original choice

[R-T-B]

Hey, @R-T-B

Well, the reason is that we believe this is the best way to measure WD drives’ reliability.
However, the people who make those decisions at Western Digital are nowhere near me to ask, so unfortunately, I can't provide you with a more accurate answer at the moment. :/

SuperSoph_WD

Kinda what I was expecting, but thanks for trying to humor me anyways.

 

[copenhagen69]

HGST Ultrastars (A Western Digital Company now) are totally awesome. I'm not so fond of their old Deskstar drives, but I think Toshiba handles that now.

SuperSoph, is there any reason the simple MTTF (Mean Time To Failure) isn't used? MTBF has always been a bit fuzzy how they calculate it but I'd think simple MTTF would be easy to understand.

Those are same price as the WD Red Pro's ... although after the deathstars some years ago I have stayed away. Is it safe to return or still kinda questionable?

 

[R-T-B]

Ultrastars are the same price as Red's?

Usually where I look they are way more expensive. a 2TB 7k6000 for example costs around $200, at least last I looked.

As for the Deskstars that are now made by Toshiba, they probably have a crappy reliability record like always unless Toshiba cleaned up shop. Just my feelings on it. The Ultrastar drives are intended for servers and are pretty fast, very reliable pieces, if kinda loud.

 

[copenhagen69]

Well the Pro Versions of the WD Red are similar. The normal Reds are way below the Ultrastar

 

[FreedomEclipse]

Those are same price as the WD Red Pro's ... although after the deathstars some years ago I have stayed away. Is it safe to return or still kinda questionable?

Its been alright to return for a long time now - The original deathstars were made by IBM for HGST, now WD probably make drives for HGST but the same drives are also rebranded for some Toshiba drives which im currently using - I have around 4 or 5 HGST rebranded Toshiba drives, Ive done a few builds with them for other people too and all but 1 of them are still working.

Ive used rebranded HGST drives for my NAS, external drives & also two in my PC and they have been absolutely fine. One in my PC started going south a few weeks ago that needed replacing but i replaced it with the same model. everything else is still chugging along just fine.

 

[claes]

Those are same price as the WD Red Pro's ... although after the deathstars some years ago I have stayed away. Is it safe to return or still kinda questionable?

I've had great experiences with newer deskstars and, when my client can afford it, I always encourage UltraStars. Toshiba has been very good to me, too (~600 drives).

I feel like I should say that, at least IME, unless you're running a bunch of disks in a RAID array there's not much to worry about. Some drives are duds (7200.11), some are wonderful (SpinPoint F3, 7k2000), but in a single drive situation reliability is far less of a concern than it is in an array. You really can't go wrong with most disks for daily use.

My best advice for HDD reliability is to a) pay extra for shipping (most of my DOAs are, IMO, due to bad shipping), b) avoid OEM drives (poor packaging), and c) have a backup plan (on and off site)!!!

EDIT!!!
It's also worth looking at platter sizes - I avoid 3tb drives because they have odd platters and, if you look back at BB's data, 3tb drives have a tendency to fail more than their 2tb and 4tb counterparts. If you really want to get into that detail you can check this out, although I'm not sure how accurate it is: http://rml527.blogspot.com

 

[Bronan]

I hate seagate i have just lost 2 of them in less than 2 years one has been replaced by the shop selling them the other i left too long at the shelf to replace, yes stupid but its done.
If i remember well there is no actual not owned by WD anymore, as far as i know is seagate and samsung hd sold to WD and hgst seems to be bought by them as well.
So i would not be surprised that WD gives each a separate label, as in seagate cheap crappy less reliable hgst a bit better but still not really reliable and WD the creme the la creme .....

I am searching drives for my nas to replace the now almost 2 year old samsungs and am kinda weary to buy anything at all, because of the above mentioned reasons.
I simply do not know what to choose for a 4 x 4 Tb disk nas system formatted as raid 5.

 

[claes]

I hate seagate i have just lost 2 of them in less than 2 years one has been replaced by the shop selling them the other i left too long at the shelf to replace, yes stupid but its done.
If i remember well there is no actual not owned by WD anymore, as far as i know is seagate and samsung hd sold to WD and hgst seems to be bought by them as well.
So i would not be surprised that WD gives each a separate label, as in seagate cheap crappy less reliable hgst a bit better but still not really reliable and WD the creme the la creme .....

WD owns HGST, Seagate bought Samsung. Toshiba is still doing it's own thing but with Hitachi's old factories.

 

[The Von Matrices]

I certainly can't support the >12% WD RED failure rate. I'm using 16 x 3TB WD REDs in a RAID 60 running 24/7, and over three years I've replaced only two drives (both due to high unrecoverable read errors) for an annual failure rate of 4.1% over that time. The main reason I chose Western Digital instead of Seagate is because WD allows you to RMA drives with unrecoverable read errors whereas Seagate requires the drive to be completely dead before you can issue an RMA.

 

[Bronan]

I certainly can't support the >12% WD RED failure rate. I'm using 16 x 3TB WD REDs in a RAID 60 running 24/7, and over three years I've replaced only two drives (both due to high unrecoverable read errors) for an annual failure rate of 4.1% over that time. The main reason I chose Western Digital instead of Seagate is because WD allows you to RMA drives with unrecoverable read errors whereas Seagate requires the drive to be completely dead before you can issue an RMA.

Yes thats the issue i constant had with support, the drive did run and sometimes worked. But when i tried to read data stored on it, the drive failed and the data from for instance a huge backup file ended up being unrecoverable. Ofcourse also the index files ...
Seagate refused to see that as a failing drive. Funny enough now a couple of weeks after the warranty its giving massive errors in the seatools program but since the warranty passed can no longer get a new one

btw lol i was right seagate bought WD:
http://www.storagenewsletter.com/ru...-wd-for-16-billion-new-company-named-seawest/
seagate bought also samsung and hgst...
So every hardrive on the planet is owned by seagate ...

 

[rtwjunkie]

Let's asks @SuperSoph_WD to clarify this...seems we would have heard about it somewhere besides that newsletter.

 

[R-T-B]

Its been alright to return for a long time now - The original deathstars were made by IBM for HGST, now WD probably make drives for HGST but the same drives are also rebranded for some Toshiba drives which im currently using - I have around 4 or 5 HGST rebranded Toshiba drives, Ive done a few builds with them for other people too and all but 1 of them are still working.

Ive used rebranded HGST drives for my NAS, external drives & also two in my PC and they have been absolutely fine. One in my PC started going south a few weeks ago that needed replacing but i replaced it with the same model. everything else is still chugging along just fine.

You got it kind of wrong... IBM made the drives on their own originally, then outsourced to HGST, who then eventually became it's own group and bought IBM's tech portfolio. HGST remained independent until WD bought them, and now is only a server drive division of their company. Toshiba owns HGST's old Desktop division though, which was to prevent trade regulators from getting mad that WD buying Hitachi made them too big.

 

[copenhagen69]

@SuperSoph_WD

I am curious why the pros are 8-16 drives and the normal reds are 1-8? What's the difference in them to make you all state that? Is it bad to put pros in less than 8 drive setup?

 

[Bronan]

I allways had pro drives in the large cabinets as well and kinda never put them into smaller cabinets and never thought about why
So good question.

 

[RCoon]

btw lol i was right seagate bought WD:
http://www.storagenewsletter.com/ru...-wd-for-16-billion-new-company-named-seawest/
seagate bought also samsung and hgst...
So every hardrive on the planet is owned by seagate ...

That's an April Fool's article...

• WD owns Hitachi (HGST) 2.5" division (they own the Hitachi 2.5" factories)
• Seagate owns Samsung's HDD division
• Toshiba don't make their own drives, they relabel drives from OEMs like WD. They just make SSDs (Via OCZ's/JMicron's controller tech). They also own HGST's 3.5" division. (they own the Hitachi 3.5" factories)

Its been alright to return for a long time now - The original deathstars were made by IBM for HGST, now WD probably make drives for HGST but the same drives are also rebranded for some Toshiba drives which im currently using - I have around 4 or 5 HGST rebranded Toshiba drives, Ive done a few builds with them for other people too and all but 1 of them are still working.

Ive used rebranded HGST drives for my NAS, external drives & also two in my PC and they have been absolutely fine. One in my PC started going south a few weeks ago that needed replacing but i replaced it with the same model. everything else is still chugging along just fine.

I tend to follow Freedom's advice on HDD's. He uses and abuses more HDD's than most, and has a tendency to place his trust in worthwhile products.

EDIT: To note, the RMA rate of all 3.5" HDD's are within about 0.5% of each other. The overall RMA rate of most drives in manufacture is ~3-4% last time I checked the figures (2-3 years ago). If you're buying a hard drive, it has just as much chance of failing as any other. I remember in 2012 the RMA rate of Seagate drives was something like 3.2%, while WD's RMA rate was 2.9%. Honestly, such a small percentage is hardly worth getting worked up about. You're playing the lottery with HDD's, only in this field, you're playing with 10 number combinations instead of 6.

 

[Bronan]

This far i have not been lucky with either WD and Seagate i am well beyond 11% failing rate on them. Seagate hold the record on failing for me now over 23%.
Only 1 of the samsung drives has failed on me this far almost 4 years which they would pass at august 2015. I might keep one nas running with them to see how long they last.

 

[SuperSoph_WD]

btw lol i was right seagate bought WD:
http://www.storagenewsletter.com/ru...-wd-for-16-billion-new-company-named-seawest/
seagate bought also samsung and hgst...
So every hardrive on the planet is owned by seagate ...

Let's asks @SuperSoph_WD to clarify this...seems we would have heard about it somewhere besides that newsletter.

Hey guys!

Not happening! Don't sweat it! Check the date of that article, it's an April fool's joke.

Quoted from the comment below the article:

For newspapers in some countries, it's a tradition to invent crazy news on April 1. This April fool
press release, dated April 1, has been totally invented by StorageNewsletter.com as we do each year for the fun.

It's a joke.
​

SuperSoph_WD

 

[SuperSoph_WD]

@SuperSoph_WD

I am curious why the pros are 8-16 drives and the normal reds are 1-8? What's the difference in them to make you all state that? Is it bad to put pros in less than 8 drive setup?

Hi again, @copenhagen69

I'd suggest you to take a look at the spec sheet of both drives here:
WD Red - http://products.wdc.com/support/kb.ashx?id=Q6TRWL
WD Red Pro - http://products.wdc.com/support/kb.ashx?id=PjvoaH

As you can see, there are slight differences and the most noticeable ones are the RMP, the warranty & the capacities. The slight differences in the WD Red Pro are there because these drives are enhanced for bigger and much more demanding NAS configurations, than the regular home NAS/RAID array. However, it is still compatible with desktop class systems (any 1 - 16 bay NAS).

Let me know if you have more questions!
SuperSoph_WD

 

[Easo]

Well, from my experience, Seagates do fail.
We have a bunch of HP ProDesk 600's, basically only thing, that ever dies in them is the Seagate Barracudas.

 

[rtwjunkie]

All HDD fail. It's only a matter of when, not if.

 

[Sasqui]

That does make sense ... I also found this review, which does make sense on why they warranty certain things the way they do ... Posted about the WD Red Pros

"I came out of an industry where the test results of solid state devices determined the warranty and price. I had a discussion with a Seagate Engineer and he said that if they guarantee a drive for 5 years, they only expect to have a very small percentage fail during the warranty."

I'm inclined to buy into that.

 

[copenhagen69]

Hi again, @copenhagen69

I'd suggest you to take a look at the spec sheet of both drives here:
WD Red - http://products.wdc.com/support/kb.ashx?id=Q6TRWL
WD Red Pro - http://products.wdc.com/support/kb.ashx?id=PjvoaH

As you can see, there are slight differences and the most noticeable ones are the RMP, the warranty & the capacities. The slight differences in the WD Red Pro are there because these drives are enhanced for bigger and much more demanding NAS configurations, than the regular home NAS/RAID array. However, it is still compatible with desktop class systems (any 1 - 16 bay NAS).

Let me know if you have more questions!
SuperSoph_WD

Thanks for the reply!!

Yes I knew the basic differences but I just wanted to double check that there was nothing crazy like Pros must have at least 8 drives or they lose all hope and stop working ... maybe not that extreme but you know. Thanks for clearing that up!!

Also, any thoughts on this statement I found online ....

"I came out of an industry where the test results of solid state devices determined the warranty and price. I had a discussion with a Seagate Engineer and he said that if they guarantee a drive for 5 years, they only expect to have a very small percentage fail during the warranty."​

Is that a pretty accurate thought process in the industry?

 

[Sasqui]

Thanks for the reply!!

Yes I knew the basic differences but I just wanted to double check that there was nothing crazy like Pros must have at least 8 drives or they lose all hope and stop working ... maybe not that extreme but you know. Thanks for clearing that up!!

Also, any thoughts on this statement I found online ....

"I came out of an industry where the test results of solid state devices determined the warranty and price. I had a discussion with a Seagate Engineer and he said that if they guarantee a drive for 5 years, they only expect to have a very small percentage fail during the warranty."​

Is that a pretty accurate thought process in the industry?

If you look at this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822236740

It's the 3TB Red Pro at $159.99 (with promo code), they compare Red vs Red Pro in a matrix, the Red Pro has what they call "extended testing"... so that may be your answer right there.

The Black and the Red Pro seem to be about the same price!

 

[copenhagen69]

If you look at this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822236740

It's the 3TB Red Pro at $159.99 (with promo code), they compare Red vs Red Pro in a matrix, the Red Pro has what they call "extended testing"... so that may be your answer right there.

The Black and the Red Pro seem to be about the same price!

great deal on 1 ... I tried to buy 4 and only save $16 total even though I saved $10 on 1 drive. I was kinda annoyed after that haha

 

[Devon68]

Well if I was building a NAS I would probably go with the WD red. I always used WD and cant complain even thou I'm sure others are the same and have about the same MTBF rating. Go with the best customer support/ warranty.