[Back Order] WD Red 4TB WD40EFRX NAS Hard Drive $143 Delivered @ Amazon AU

240

Affiliate

Go to Deal

Cashback

borntospeed on 16/01/2022 - 15:32 amazon.com.au (592 clicks)
Last edited 16/01/2022 - 15:53 by 1 other user

This post contains affiliate links. OzBargain might earn commissions when you click through and make purchases. Please see this page for more information.

With everyone being more aware of the difference between CMR and SMR drives, these ones are the WD40EFRX which are now called Red Plus.
You can see which WD drives are CMR and SMR via https://blog.westerndigital.com/wd-red-nas-drives/.
I bought the original ones back in 2015 and they are still going strong. My usage is my daily secondary drive, so store my photos, music, games, videos, etc.

Amazing how much the price has dropped, I paid $220 back in 2015. #cry

Price History at CamelCamelCamel.

Related Stores

Amazon AU

Marketplace

• 

  MOMEHT on 16/01/2022 - 15:46

  OOS?

• 

  Neology on 16/01/2022 - 15:55

  +8

  $77 (220-143) for six years depreciation and your enjoyment, you should be laughing

  • 

    buffalo bill on 16/01/2022 - 16:22

    Exactly. Someone could easily have paid that for 4TB cloud storage over the years, and not even own the drive.

    • 

      Elyxar on 16/01/2022 - 17:46

      That requires a reliable NBN though.

  • 

    Psomaggi on 16/01/2022 - 19:28

    Agree - I remember paying $600 for a 210MB HDD in the 90s. If you'd paid $220 a couple of weeks ago, I'd be peeved, but $220 7 years ago - I reckon you're beating the house there.

• 

  dimavs on 16/01/2022 - 16:27

  I paid 650 (153 per disk plus delivery) for 4 disks in 2018.

• 

  boretentsu on 16/01/2022 - 16:52

  I bought one in Feb 2016 and it died mid last year, 5 years of use.

• 

  bigmicka on 16/01/2022 - 17:06

  +1

  These were $119 at shopping express on Black Friday.

• 

  bdl on 16/01/2022 - 17:50

  +4

  I buy Ironwolf exclusively now seeing as WD tried to screw us on the whole SMR/CMR Red debacle

  • 

    onggie on 16/01/2022 - 19:28

    Technically Seagate did the same thing FYI

    • 

      bdl on 16/01/2022 - 20:08

      Agreed completely (I got burned by a few SMR Barracudas), however at least if sticking to Ironwolf at least you can be guaranteed they're CMR.

    • 

      Trance N Dance on 16/01/2022 - 23:56

      +1

      There's a difference between what WD did and what Seagate did.

      In general use cases, there is nothing wrong with SMR (other than slow down once the drive is getting full, I've only noticed it on software RAID1 at 90%+).

      What WD did was they submarined SMR drives into a line advertised to be used in NAS conditions (which generally meant RAID). The majority (if not all) of people who found problems were ZFS RAID users (and I think BTRFS). Under ZFS(/BTRFS) the WD SMR drives failed rebuilds as the drives were too slow and "timed out" the rebuild process, most likely due to the poor random write of SMR drives.

      Seagate and WD did submarine SMR drives into their Barracuda and Blue lines respectively. But these drives are not meant for NAS/RAID use and are perfectly fine for every day use where most people will either write small amounts of data at a time or use it as long term storage where it's write once read many (WORM).

      You can't exactly blame the manufacturer for using something off label like a Barracuda in a NAS.