Price drop just came in on these, courtesy of Camelx3
Great for Shucking, not WD Red drives, but better than the Seagate Archive drives.
CamelCamelCamel.
Sorry? Its cheaper to buy an external with a HDD already if that's what you're asking. People buy these and remove the HDD to then install in their PC or server.
Yes, that is what I meant.
Thanks OP, very tempting.
does this have 1 or 2 drives inside? (ie 1 x 8 TB drive or 2 x 4 TB?)
EDIT: never mind its a single drive.
1 x 8TB
What drive are they using for the 8TB?
Edit: From an older post "the drive inside is a WD80EZZX, which is basically the same as the 8TB Red, but with TLER off (i.e. less suitable for NAS use)"
Also in the comments of that post was a link stating that most NAS dont even care about TLER, so no difference to 8TB Red for the consumer.
TLER is really only an issue for hardware RAID systems. Non-TLER are fine for software RAID, which is what consumer NAS units use.
I remember reading maybe somewhere years ago that TLER was good if you plan on filling up the hard drive a lot like past 60% because it rearranges the data to be more easily accessed is this correct?
As somebody who wants to maybe build a large 30 tb hard drive storage unit someday non raid will TLER be useful for me and worth the upgrade or is this HDD good enough aka non TLER.
Tl;dr I have forgotten the benefits and good use cases for TLER as I have focused more on SSD's which do not require TLER because of their flash and already fast access time nature. Please explain.
I remember reading maybe somewhere years ago that TLER was good if you plan on filling up the hard drive a lot like past 60% because it rearranges the data to be more easily accessed is this correct?
No, that is not correct. TLER stands for Time-Limited Error Recovery. All it does is it forces the drive to 'give up' reading a bad sector if a difficult to read sector is encountered. If the drive enconters such a sector, then it may spend some time trying to read the contents. This additional time might cause a RAID controller to mark the drive as failed because it didn't return a value quick enough. The issue does not exist if you are using software RAID.
@renza: so does this affect me if I am not unsung any form of RAID just say 4 individual 8 TB hard drives? Or only if I am using one of the many forms of RAID I.e redundancy, backup, speed performance, etc
@AlienC: TLER only really affects you if you are using hardware RAID, that is, a PCI-E card which is handling the RAID functions. if you are just connecting 4 8TB hard drives to your PC and using them as 4 different drives, then TLER is not required.
Is it confirmed that these are normal SATA disks?
I thought WD usually put the USB controller on the board now.
That's the portable 2.5" drives.
I have three of these (cases removed) in my storage tower working well.
What are you doing with the HDD? General backup of files/videos? If so get that one, since it's just an archive drive, this one i think is better for continues use in a NAS.
Video storage, playback and general purpose temporsry storage of video editing video files (editing done on PC’s SSD). So not for long term archiving. would be moving large video files to and from it and the PC’s SSD for editing.
Either way should be fine. Archive drive would be slower, so keep that in mind.
I'd only get the Seagate if money was an issue.
thanks, will go WD
Why? Is it slower or worse off for storing some large games and media files.
An archive drive does not mean it is better for long-term archive of data. It just means that it uses SMR technology to store files, so it's slower on writes.
It depends on what you want to use it for. Seagate drive is an archive/SMR drive so will be slow at writing, hence why it is cheaper. A lot of people hate Seagate and favour WD for its perceived better reliability.
keyword: perceived
ive used multipple brands over the years and have no allegiance - not since the early 90’s where failure was much higher
I make no comment about reliability - personally my NAS includes both Seagate and WD drives. Some of the drives will soon, or have, been spinning for over 4 years without issue. If one of them were to die it wouldn't bother me as everything is redundant and backed-up anyway.
Thanks bought 2 to replace my NAS that has 2x3TB to upgrade to its max of 2x8TB.
If it supports 8TB drives, there's no reason you can't put a 10TB+ drive in it (unless it's a firmware limitation of some sort). The general rule is if it supports 3TB drives, then there's no limit (yet). Some older devices only support up to 2TB drives.
why if the NAS supports 3 TB then there is no limit? can you please explain?
For some reason, there was a 32bit limit on some older systems (but some 32bit systems can use large drives). not 100% sure on the cause. 32bits at 512-byte sectors was ~2.2TB, so any drive larger than 2TB would only have the first 2TB usable. Some older drive controlers also suffered from the same limitations (e.g. some older LSI based cards like the Dell SAS6).
Controllers now can address 48-bit LBAs (Logical block addresses), which equates to 144PB of data.
So unless the NAS manufacturer is explicitly blocking large drives for some reason, there's no technical reason that a 3tb drive would work and a 10tb one wouldn't
How is it dealing with warranty with WD in Australia if purchasing from Amazon USA?
Don't think WD has warranty support in AU. Have to mail to SG.
While I have not done any "Shucking"; is it better?, (but more expensive) to "Only buy internal HD and put it in a USB or SATA docking station."