My SMR drive - opinions please

[qubit]

In April 2020 I bought the WD Blue WD60EZAZ 6TB drive. I use it to store my game installs and occasional virtual machines (I tend to test and discard) and it's currently holding 3.3TB of data. It's not backed up, since the games are all on Steam, Origin etc so can be downloaded again, although it would take several months to do at my "broadband" speed of 20Mbps. I don't play them all that much either and I've not had any problems with the drive or noticed any particular performance issues.

A couple of months later, the scandal broke out between SMR and PMR drives because manufacturers at the time had a habit of not specifying the recording method used in their spec sheets, as they didn't with my drive.

SMR = Shingled Magnetic Recording
Sounds like something you catch, doesn't it?

PMR - Perpendicular Magnetic Recording
The way "normal" drives work.

My question: is it worth replacing the drive with a PMR model to avoid potential problems down the road, or just stay with it? Common sense seems to dictate just to stay with it, but I'd be interested to see what others think.

---

EDIT TO CLARIFY USAGE

Usage is mostly read when I'm loading a game up, which isn't very often. The only write operations of note are automatic game updates from Steam where write performance doesn't matter, especially at my download speed.

If I was doing a lot of writing with it, I'd have replaced it for sure and this wouldn't have even been a question. And it's only holding my games which aren't important in the grand scheme of things. All my other data is stored on a WD Black 4TB and is properly backed up.

---

This LTT video explains the difference between SMR & PMR drives and their trade-offs.

 

[Shrek]

By PMR do you mean CMR?

CMR and SMR Hard Drives | Seagate US

 

[MIRTAZAPINE]

By PMR do you mean CMR?

CMR and SMR Hard Drives | Seagate US

CMR aka conventional magnetic recording is the same as PMR (Perpendicular magnetic recording). The CMR name came about to differentiate SMR (Shingle magnetic recording) from Non-SMR drives aka PMR only. All SMR drive are PMR drives but they are not CMR.

My question: is it worth replacing the drive with a PMR model to avoid potential problems down the road, or just stay with it? Common sense seems to dictate just to stay with it, but I'd be interested to see what others think.

Its up to you. SMR hdd are fine if you use them in their intended way of archiving media and it being a mostly read only operation. Problem comes when you workload is read and write especially writes which would suffer alot when the HDD cache is used up. Personally I would replace it CMR drive myself from your workload it sound like you have read/write workload usage for the HDD which is not quite ideal. Otherwise I don't see it being a problem. Not sure if SMR and CMR have any difference from a reliability standpoint. CMR in theory should be more reliable with data tracks not being overlapped like SMR. I have had bad experience with SMR so I tend to avoid them unless it is a light use HDD.

 

[eidairaman1]

Id use it as a backup drive only.

And also trusting steam to keep your games is like playing craps. Id have them backed up to a mech drive/usb and then optical media kept in a dark cool case with dessicant.

Those software launchers could easily lose your data. I remember a Parts store losing all account info for warranty parts. Its a good thing I made copies of Reciepts as well since most places use thermal paper.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Tough to say chunk it seeing it's size and the way you game
But blue is data only type of series which is archive stuff backup I have 1 or 2 for just system image storage but nowhere this size you have.

I lean to black series for game and t.v series stuff seeing I access the data a lot/ daily.

So stay with it just in another way.

 

[qubit]

People, I've just clarified my usage of the drive in my OP. Check it out.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
I'd still move games to black.

 

[Shrek]

I still like the hybrid drives (Seagate FireCuda) as the 8GB solid state cache reduces hard drive thrashing and the hard drive reduces cache writes (it's the writes, not reads, that cause SSD wear)

HOWEVER only the 3.5" version is CMR

 

[64K]

My Grandfather used to say. "If it ain't broke don't fix it".

Sounds like you don't game enough that you would be concerned if this drive died on you and you had to replace it and download some games again. I've never had any problems with HDDs including one of my PCs at work that I used daily for almost 11 years. The IT people hauled the PC away and put me in a new PC just because of adopting Win 10 system wide.

 

[Shrek]

My Grandfather used to say. "If it ain't broke don't fix it".

While I agree with this, I still tend to open up my old working power supplies and recap them (preventive maintenance), so they won't break at an inopportune moment.

This LTT video explains the difference between SMR & PMR drives and their trade-offs.

Very interesting about the ZFS files system and SMR drives interaction.


Concerning your vote; I'd say

• Keep it for storage (games and the like)
• Replace it if used as a boot drive

which puts you in the first category.

 

[qubit]

@Shrek
I think CMR / PMR are just different terms for the same thing. The video used PMR so I went with that and I think that's the more common term.

Its up to you. SMR hdd are fine if you use them in their intended way of archiving media and it being a mostly read only operation. Problem comes when you workload is read and write especially writes which would suffer alot when the HDD cache is used up. Personally I would replace it CMR drive myself from your workload it sound like you have read/write workload usage for the HDD which is not quite ideal. Otherwise I don't see it being a problem. Not sure if SMR and CMR have any difference from a reliability standpoint. CMR in theory should be more reliable with data tracks not being overlapped like SMR. I have had bad experience with SMR so I tend to avoid them unless it is a light use HDD.

Yeah, it's more of an archiver for my usage. I think my OP clarification covers it.


@eidairaman1
Seriously, it doesn't matter for my usage. I've only got the inconvenience of redownloading everything if it craps out and they're only games in the end. And in my experience, Steam and the other content management systems have done a fine job of looking after my games, so I'm not worried about that.

@Selaya
Grats for voting to chuck it in the furnace!

---

Everyone, looks like the verdict is in: given my usage, I'll just stay with it and not worry about the internal workings. In particular, it's lovely and quiet, which is really important for me.

 

[Aquinus]

Does it work? I mean, as long as reliability is good and the performance is tolerable, then why not? I have a dinky 2.5" 4TB drive that's my backup for my laptop. It's not very fast, but it gets the job done and has been fairly solid so far. So long as you're happy with it and it works well, then why not use an SMR drive? For games though, I'll always take SSD over rotational media, hands down.

 

[qubit]

Thanks @Aquinus

Yes, it performs well enough for its assigned duty.

A faster rotating drive would surely be better for game loading times, eg WD Black as 3.3TB+ is a little large for a home SSD setup lol, but I play them so little nowadays that the extra few seconds doesn't matter.

 

[chrcoluk]

If its currently working ok for you then it will probably in the future providing its used for the same purpose.

There is no evidence I am aware off that SMR drives degrade faster.

Of course when you next buy a spindle go for a CMR model.

 

[qubit]

If its currently working ok for you then it will probably in the future providing its used for the same purpose.

There is no evidence I am aware off that SMR drives degrade faster.

Of course when you next buy a spindle go for a CMR model.

Ya, I totally will. Of course, I only bought this one as the recording method wasn't disclosed.

 

[newtekie1]

I see no reason to even worry about having a SMR drive when using them in a single drive configuration. The downsides of SMR, when in a single drive configuration, really are blown out of proportion. Yes, they can write slower when the CMR cache runs out. But I've literally written 100s of GB of data to my SMR drive at once and it never hit the point where it was writing to the SMR directly. So, unless you plan to buy one and fill the drive up in one go, SMR will likely never even affect you.

A faster rotating drive would surely be better for game loading times, eg WD Black as 3.3TB+ is a little large for a home SSD setup lol, but I play them so little nowadays that the extra few seconds doesn't matter.

Almost all my games are run off an 8TB WD SMR drive. If you really want faster without breaking the bank, look into using an SSD cache with the HDD. And 8TB HDD with a 1TB SSD cache is way cheaper than 8TB of SSD storage.

 

[Mussels]

Clearly, stay with it until and unless write speeds become an issue. When they do, upgrade to anything not SMR.

You could also use some kind of caching (primocache, optane, blah blah blah) to reduce performance issues as well.

 

[Assimilator]

Considering that 4TB 2.5" SSDs can be found for under 300 quid now, that's another option.

 

[Mussels]

Considering that 4TB 2.5" SSDs can be found for under 300 quid now, that's another option.

They're QLC drives, the SSD equivalent to SMR.

Except they die fast, as well as write slow.

 

[MIRTAZAPINE]

They're QLC drives, the SSD equivalent to SMR.

Except they die fast, as well as write slow.

The crucial MX500 have gone down to about that price and it is a TLC ssd. The crucial 4tb version have about 1000TBW for them I am highly considering after price drop for my use too. Currently the cheapest TLC based ssd with a decent track record. I would avoid QLC ssd.

 

[qubit]

Thanks for the extra feedback people. It's fine though, I'm staying with it as was my gut feeling in my OP.

@newtekie1
That's interesting about all those heavy writes being absorbed by the cache. It looks like the usage where it really makes a difference is in RAID where it can be dramatic as in that LTT video.

 

[newtekie1]

That's interesting about all those heavy writes being absorbed by the cache. It looks like the usage where it really makes a difference is in RAID where it can be dramatic as in that LTT video.

Yeah, for the most part, normal users never even realize they have an SMR drive. It became a problem when WD released SMR drives under the Red line, and even then they worked fine for a while until one died and someone noticed it was taking forever to rebuild their array. Rebuilding the array writes so much data to the drive that the cache runs out and write speeds tank. Only then did the whole SMR thing come out and people like LTT started making videos about them. But SMR drives have been sold to consumers for close to 10 years now and consumers never even really realized it.

 

[lexluthermiester]

In April 2020 I bought the WD Blue WD60EZAZ 6TB drive. I use it to store my game installs and occasional virtual machines (I tend to test and discard) and it's currently holding 3.3TB of data. It's not backed up, since the games are all on Steam, Origin etc so can be downloaded again, although it would take several months to do at my "broadband" speed of 20Mbps. I don't play them all that much either and I've not had any problems with the drive or noticed any particular performance issues.

A couple of months later, the scandal broke out between SMR and PMR drives because manufacturers at the time had a habit of not specifying the recording method used in their spec sheets, as they didn't with my drive.

SMR = Shingled Magnetic Recording
Sounds like something you catch, doesn't it?

PMR - Perpendicular Magnetic Recording
The way "normal" drives work.

My question: is it worth replacing the drive with a PMR model to avoid potential problems down the road, or just stay with it? Common sense seems to dictate just to stay with it, but I'd be interested to see what others think.

---

EDIT TO CLARIFY USAGE

Usage is mostly read when I'm loading a game up, which isn't very often. The only write operations of note are automatic game updates from Steam where write performance doesn't matter, especially at my download speed.

If I was doing a lot of writing with it, I'd have replaced it for sure and this wouldn't have even been a question. And it's only holding my games which aren't important in the grand scheme of things. All my other data is stored on a WD Black 4TB and is properly backed up.

---

This LTT video explains the difference between SMR & PMR drives and their trade-offs.

If it's not your boot/OS drive, you're fine. SMR drives are not garbage. They're just not suitable for an OS drive because they're slower.

Keep the drive, worry not.

 

[chrcoluk]

They're QLC drives, the SSD equivalent to SMR.

Except they die fast, as well as write slow.

Plus that price is still around triple of a 4TB HDD very bad value per TB if the priority is storage capacity.

 

[qubit]

If it's not your boot/OS drive, you're fine. SMR drives are not garbage. They're just not suitable for an OS drive because they're slower.

Keep the drive, worry not.

But I like fretting!

But seriously, it's strictly data only of course. I'm tempted to try it out as a boot drive one day to see how awful it is, enthusiast style.