WD "Blue" vs "Red"

Somebody I know needs a new system drive for their desktop PC.

I have always used 5400 RPM WD Reds and have had pretty good luck with
them, but I see that 7200 RPM Blues are about fifteen dollars cheaper -
but I have zero experience with Blues.

Would anybody care to comment on the tradeoffs?
--
Pete Cresswell

On 12/19/2016 09:34 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Somebody I know needs a new system drive for their desktop PC.

I have always used 5400 RPM WD Reds and have had pretty good luck with
them, but I see that 7200 RPM Blues are about fifteen dollars cheaper -
but I have zero experience with Blues.

Would anybody care to comment on the tradeoffs?




I have one in use and it's fine, but most of the time I go for Black

On 12/19/2016 10:15 AM, philo wrote:
X

Forgot this:


https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/ar...D-Rainbow-674/

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
Somebody I know needs a new system drive for their desktop PC.

I have always used 5400 RPM WD Reds and have had pretty good luck with
them, but I see that 7200 RPM Blues are about fifteen dollars cheaper -
but I have zero experience with Blues.

Would anybody care to comment on the tradeoffs?

The advertising says the Red drives are for "NAS".

Yet the number of one-star reviews runs around
20% for the few other drives I've compared it to.
So if there was something "magical" about the Red
drive, it doesn't show.

While there are some drives which support Intellipower,
those drives don't usually mention RPM figures, so they
won't have to explain what it really does.

There are several options:

1) Full speed, 24x7
2) Intellipower, spins slower when not in use.
3) Head unload when not busy. I got stuck with a
scum-sucking drive of this variety on my last
system drive purchase.

The seek time performance on a 5400 RPM drive
cannot be as good as a 7200 RPM drive. Rotational
latency is a contributing factor.

Sustained transfer rate can be comparable - if they bump
up the areal density on the 5400 RPM drive. Assuming performance
is channel-amp limited, they could squeeze more bits together
in a track. The interaction with grain size, might cause
the raw error rate statistic to suffer. But nobody reads
that spec, right ? :-)

*******

My foremost concern when buying drives, is not getting
a "failure prone" drive.

I hate drives that spin down when not in usage, and
dammit, now I own one.

Drives come in 512e, 512n, and 4Kn. The 512e might require
"alignment" for a WinXP OS loaded onto the disk. The 512n works
with anything. The 4Kn, you would want an OS that supports
4096 byte sectors natively. I avoid such drives, as I want a drive that
will work in any computer and OS. I probably have a 50:50 split
on 512e and 512n. Finding 512n now is tricky (and potentially
more expensive).

So, does the Blue fail the "aggressive head unload" requirement ?
I don't like laptop behaviors on a desktop. I want a drive that
can operate continuously, and I "don't want to be aware the
drive is there". It should be an invisible servant, not
an impetuous piece of crap.

A number of important parameters are not discussed
in *any* documentation. We rely on customer reviews
to detect drives with a head-unload issue.

The older 1TB Blue drive is 7200RPM. The newer one is 5400RPM.

https://www.wdc.com/content/dam/wdc/...879-771436.pdf

And you know the Blue is a good drive, when WDC distributes
it as a Black drive. And I bet the WDC execs drive Cadillacs
with the big fins on the back and smoke Cuban cigars.

https://community.wd.com/t/wd1003fze...ained/16841/16

Have fun with your shopping chore,

Paul

Per philo:
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/ar...D-Rainbow-674/

Nice link - Thanks!

How about "WD says that you can use up to eight Red drives in a system
(or NAS)" ?

I get the part about vibration being part of the picture, but can
anybody explain how/why more than 6-8 drives creates a different
scenario across the board?

I would have thought that it depends on things like sleep modes, how
well the drive bays are isolated vibration-wise from the rest of the
chassis, and whether the box runs 24-7 or just a few hours per day.

For my backup server, I have a 20-bay case and I have been populating it
with castoff drives from other applications. Right now it's up to 14
drives - most, but not all WD Reds... but it would that I am headed for
trouble with that box.
--
Pete Cresswell

Per (PeteCresswell):
but it would that I am headed

SHB "but it would seem that I am headed"
--
Pete Cresswell

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per philo:
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/ar...D-Rainbow-674/

Nice link - Thanks!

How about "WD says that you can use up to eight Red drives in a system
(or NAS)" ?

I get the part about vibration being part of the picture, but can
anybody explain how/why more than 6-8 drives creates a different
scenario across the board?

I would have thought that it depends on things like sleep modes, how
well the drive bays are isolated vibration-wise from the rest of the
chassis, and whether the box runs 24-7 or just a few hours per day.

For my backup server, I have a 20-bay case and I have been populating it
with castoff drives from other applications. Right now it's up to 14
drives - most, but not all WD Reds... but it would that I am headed for
trouble with that box.

Some drives have a two-stage head positioner.

1) Voice coil assembly moves heads to roughly the
correct track. Stays on target by tracking servo
wedge pattern.

2) Piezoelectric actuator does fine tuning of
head position. Presumably a lower mass, faster
response time system. When seven other drives combine
their async motor vibrations together, the piezoelectric
actuator works to counter the effects. The piece of
piezoelectric material, might be right between
the head and the arm. And be a tiny tiny piece of
material.

I've seen neither a technical white paper, nor any
pictures of this scheme. So far, it's only a note
in some marketing materials, that the heads are
two stage.

There is also a thermoelectric element which
controls height. But it's more or less a static
control. On a write, the thermal portion heats
up and moves the heads closer to the platter
in anticipation of the write op.

*******

Now, this is someone's thesis, and it involves
the piezoelectric part. Crazy stuff. 1,087,577 bytes. 128 pages.

http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewco...chool_th eses

Paul

In article , lid
says...

Somebody I know needs a new system drive for their desktop PC.

I have always used 5400 RPM WD Reds and have had pretty good luck with
them, but I see that 7200 RPM Blues are about fifteen dollars cheaper -
but I have zero experience with Blues.

Would anybody care to comment on the tradeoffs?

I avoid 5400 RPM drives if possible, 7200 are always so much faster.

On 2016-12-19 11:23, Paul wrote:

And you know the Blue is a good drive, when WDC distributes
it as a Black drive. And I bet the WDC execs drive Cadillacs
with the big fins on the back and smoke Cuban cigars.

https://community.wd.com/t/wd1003fze...ained/16841/16

Your research prowess is always impressive Sir Paul :-)

--
! _\|/_ Sylvain /
! (o o) Memberavid-Suzuki-Fdn/EFF/Red+Cross/SPCA/Planetary-Society
oO-( )-Oo 10 kinds of people: those who know binary and those who dont

En el artículo , Paul escribió:

3) Head unload when not busy. I got stuck with a
scum-sucking drive of this variety on my last
system drive purchase.

Easily fixed.

http://idle3-tools.sourceforge.net/

I used this to disable the absurdly short head unload timeout on a WD Green WD20EZRX.

[root@nas1 tmp]# smartctl -i /dev/sde

smartctl 5.42 2011-10-20 r3458 [i686-linux-2.6.18-410.el5.centos.plus]

=== START OF INFORMATION SECTION ===
Device Model: WDC WD20EZRX-00D8PB0
Serial Number: WD-WMC4MXXXXXXX
LU WWN Device Id: 5 0014ee 0591dcc3d
Firmware Version: 80.00A80
User Capacity: 2,000,398,934,016 bytes [2.00 TB]
Sector Sizes: 512 bytes logical, 4096 bytes physical
Device is: Not in smartctl database [for details use: -P showall]
ATA Version is: 8
ATA Standard is: ACS-2 (revision not indicated)
Local Time is: Sun Jul 10 04:30:36 2016 BST
SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability.
SMART support is: Enabled

[root@microserver tmp]# smartctl -A /dev/sde | grep "^193"

193 Load_Cycle_Count 0x0032 200 200 000 Old_age Always
- 793


--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 10:15:25 -0600
philo wrote:

On 12/19/2016 09:34 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Somebody I know needs a new system drive for their desktop PC.

I have always used 5400 RPM WD Reds and have had pretty good luck
with them, but I see that 7200 RPM Blues are about fifteen dollars
cheaper - but I have zero experience with Blues.

Would anybody care to comment on the tradeoffs?




I have one in use and it's fine, but most of the time I go for Black

cause that is the color of the local whores?

pjp wrote:
In article , lid
says...

Somebody I know needs a new system drive for their desktop PC.

I have always used 5400 RPM WD Reds and have had pretty good luck with
them, but I see that 7200 RPM Blues are about fifteen dollars cheaper -
but I have zero experience with Blues.

Would anybody care to comment on the tradeoffs?

I avoid 5400 RPM drives if possible, 7200 are always so much faster.

Me too. Wait, why do we have not faster HDD speeds? 7200 is like old.
LOL.
--
Happy Holidays/Season's Greetings/Merry Christmas/Etc.
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
( ) ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.

In message , Ant
writes:
pjp wrote:
In article , lid
says...

Somebody I know needs a new system drive for their desktop PC.

I have always used 5400 RPM WD Reds and have had pretty good luck with
them, but I see that 7200 RPM Blues are about fifteen dollars cheaper -
but I have zero experience with Blues.

Would anybody care to comment on the tradeoffs?

I avoid 5400 RPM drives if possible, 7200 are always so much faster.

Obviously, all else being equal, they're 50% faster. I'm dubious that
there are _many_ situations where 50% more delay in some aspects of disc
use actually makes much difference. I also feel the 5xxx ones run
cooler. But somewhat academic now as they're getting hard to find.

Me too. Wait, why do we have not faster HDD speeds? 7200 is like old.
LOL.

(-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Electricians do it 'till it Hz.

Ant wrote:
pjp wrote:
In article , lid
says...
Somebody I know needs a new system drive for their desktop PC.

I have always used 5400 RPM WD Reds and have had pretty good luck with
them, but I see that 7200 RPM Blues are about fifteen dollars cheaper -
but I have zero experience with Blues.

Would anybody care to comment on the tradeoffs?

I avoid 5400 RPM drives if possible, 7200 are always so much faster.

Me too. Wait, why do we have not faster HDD speeds? 7200 is like old.
LOL.

They make 15K drives. That's the fastest I know of.

Those can be noisy, so you'd want to hear one, before
you buy one :-) These are definitely not good drives
for your bedroom. The designers assumed these drives
are all locked in a server room, and they're not
intended for home computing.

Now that they've perfected helium-filled HDAs,
I think they could make a faster one. But, they won't.
For one thing, the read channel may not have room
for a higher transfer rate signal. A good 7200 RPM
is 210MB/sec, a 15K drive is around 300MB/sec. So
the sequential isn't that much better. The 15K has
better seek time. Also, the areal density is lower.
They would make a good boot drive and that's about it.
A single platter might be 300GB, versus 1TB on the
7200 RPM drives.

Paul

On 12/20/2016 8:30 PM, Paul wrote:
Ant wrote:
pjp wrote:
In article , lid
says...
Somebody I know needs a new system drive for their desktop PC.

I have always used 5400 RPM WD Reds and have had pretty good luck with
them, but I see that 7200 RPM Blues are about fifteen dollars cheaper -
but I have zero experience with Blues.

Would anybody care to comment on the tradeoffs?

I avoid 5400 RPM drives if possible, 7200 are always so much faster.

Me too. Wait, why do we have not faster HDD speeds? 7200 is like old.
LOL.

They make 15K drives. That's the fastest I know of.

Those can be noisy, so you'd want to hear one, before
you buy one :-) These are definitely not good drives
for your bedroom. The designers assumed these drives
are all locked in a server room, and they're not
intended for home computing.

Now that they've perfected helium-filled HDAs,
I think they could make a faster one. But, they won't.
For one thing, the read channel may not have room
for a higher transfer rate signal. A good 7200 RPM
is 210MB/sec, a 15K drive is around 300MB/sec. So
the sequential isn't that much better. The 15K has
better seek time. Also, the areal density is lower.
They would make a good boot drive and that's about it.
A single platter might be 300GB, versus 1TB on the
7200 RPM drives.

Paul


Yes the Seagate Cheetah 15,000 rpm drives are still readily available,
but why a desktop user would want one is beyond me with all the SSDs now
available.

Rene