YAPT (yet another performance test) is a benchmark recommended by a pair of drive manufacturers and was incredibly difficult to locate as it hasn't been updated or used in quite some time. That doesn't make it irrelevant by any means though, as the benchmark is quite useful. It creates a test file of about 100 MB in size and runs both random and sequential read and write tests with it while changing the data I/O size in the process. The results are a good look at overall drive performance.
Disclaimer: YAPT is not a 4K aligned test. This causes the Red (and even the VelociRaptor in some places) to see a considerable performance hit on random access tests. This is most exemplified in the random write results, where we see the two non Advanced Format drives (4TB Black and 4TB RE) handle the workload much differently than the rest of the pack. When you write to an Advanced Format drive with either misaligned writes or writes smaller than 4k, the drive must read the whole 4k sector, modify the (smaller) portion that was actually written by the host, and then re-write that updated 4k sector back to the platters. As you might imagine, this takes longer than simply modifying the 512 byte sector of a non-Advanced Format drive. *Most* NAS devices will properly align their data to 4k boundaries, so this is not a hugely significant issue when considering bulk storage NAS-type usage scenarios.
The 6TB Red performs mid-pack on sequentials here, but turns in the worst figures in the random tests. We suspect this is largely due to the misconfiguration bug that will be corrected with a future firmware update.
I am a capitalist. I do not
I am a capitalist. I do not use red drives!!! lol!
Then buy a purple drive, you
Then buy a purple drive, you fairy 😛
If you ain’t black, you ain’t
If you ain’t black, you ain’t crap.
Don’t be mean, buy Green.
Don’t be mean, buy Green.
Good to know these are
Good to know these are affordable. I’ve still got about a year before I run out of space using 4TB REDs, then I’ll start upgrading with 6TB drives. I tried Seagate’s NAS drives but the one’s I bought (at least) were way too loud for use at home.
3TB is still the best $/GB at
3TB is still the best $/GB at $0.043/GB. Better density for the NAS drives, though not sure the price is worth it.
No. 5TB Seagate externals
No. 5TB Seagate externals are $190. $0.038/GB. I can’t buy them fast enough!
I think your failure premise
I think your failure premise is a bit contrived. No one should be running a RAID system of any type without full SMART checks on a regular basis at the very least.
I’ve personally had RAIDs
I've personally had RAIDs fail in that scenario even with SMART checks in place, as well as weekly full array data scrubs. Fact is that unless you have some form of TLER, a second drive failure that occurs mid rebuild will cause most RAID controllers to offline the array.
Ryan had also had such a failure (using Seagate drives), and I had to recover his array by imaging the non-failed drives and manually de-striping in software.
Curious Allyn, which imaging
Curious Allyn, which imaging software did you use to rescue that array ???
It wasn’t the imaging
It wasn't the imaging software that did the rescue – all it did was create images of the drives (and read past the unreadable areas after hours of timeouts / retries). One I had the images, I coded something myself to re-stitch, using alternating parity (i.e. two drives had unreadable sectors in (mostly) alternating areas relative to each other).
That was for my array recovery. Ryan's was easier, as he had just one drive with a small cluster of bad sectors causing his array to timeout. I was able to image that drive and re-stitch that array back together with a tool from Runtime Software – but with some custom settings I had to come up with myself, as Ryan's array was not easy for that software to 'lock' onto in auto mode.
So the pro is “better” &
So the pro is “better” & expected to last longer, yet is 6dBA LOUDER than the standard WD RED….
Also, did anyone else notice they changed the “Non-recoverable read errors per bits” to look better despite being the same?
It’s a 7200 RPM enterprise
It's a 7200 RPM enterprise spec drive. *Of course* it is faster / louder.
You should look into how
You should look into how Seagate is intentionally crippling consumer HDDs with low APM states and special firmware to scare enterprise customers into buying more expensive drives.
Can we mix and match Green
Can we mix and match Green and Red drives?
always i used to read smaller
always i used to read smaller articles that also clear
their motive, and that is also happening withh this post which I am reading now.
my blog post como Adelgazar 10 kilos
Hi I’ve got 3 existing 1year
Hi I’ve got 3 existing 1year old WD RED 4TB drives and am moving to a new Synology 1515plus. I’d like to expand my storage and am considering a RED PRO instead of buying another standard 4TB RED drive
My question is this, is it bad to mix a new 4TB RED PRO with the older 4TB standard RED drives in a RAID?
Thanks in advance
I have almost the same
I have almost the same question, except i have 5 x one year old wd red 3tb’s and am expanding to 8 drives…Would it be better to use 3 new pro drives, or stick with 3 new standard red drives?
Thanks in advance.
oh, and by the way…..Merry Christmas to all on here!
Pro drives would be your best
Pro drives would be your best bet, since they have accelerometers in like the Se drives to actively reduce vibration. Though even the newer plain reds have nasware 3.0 and so have software based vibration reduction, allowing upto 8 drives.
WD have also said they will honour warranties of those using older (1-5 bay drives) in 8 bay configs.
Perhaps on cost, plain reds would be better, don’t forget the red pro isn’t a home NAS drive, it’s louder, faster, and uses more power (around 5w/drive more), designed for heavier use.