Western Digital Green Vs Red for Server
#16
(2012-08-28, 18:06)KraziJoe Wrote:
(2012-08-28, 09:25)jaochoo Wrote: What makes a drive a NAS drive vs. a Desktop drive?

Marketing.

I was going to say that also. WD puts a lot of $ into its marketing

Reply
#17
I'd simply buy the cheaper hdds..

i'm using a pair of wd greens in my desktop and they are flawless. (2x2Tb in Raid0)
They never got hotter than 35c and are pretty fast for their 5400 rpms. (about 250 MB/s reading and 200 writing)
Reply
#18
People seem to forget what RAID actually stands for. Redundant array of INEXPENSIVE drives. The whole point is to be able to use cheaper drives. I've been using WD green drives for years with no issue, with them on 24/7 serving media to my system. The newer green drives will also spin up to 7200 rpm under heavy load. I say go with the green, unless the red happens to be cheaper.
Reply
#19
Correct me if I'm wrong but an advantage that I see would be that the Red is always on.

Right now with the Green, my problem is while browsing my library the disks have to 'wake up' so the library becomes non responsive for a few seconds for each drives. This is pretty annoying if you have several drives.
So the Red drives wouldn't behave like that, correct?
Box 1: ODroid N2+ 4GB
Box 2: Intel NUC D34010WYK (Windows afedchin's Krypton MVC Build)
Box 3: Vero 4K
RIP schimi2k | I miss you buddy :(
Reply
#20
In terms of of a HTPC with a SSD for OS and a HDD for Media, would a Red be better than a Green if the HTPC is always going to be on or in standby/sleep?
Reply
#21
(2012-08-29, 00:19)ArieS Wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but an advantage that I see would be that the Red is always on.

Right now with the Green, my problem is while browsing my library the disks have to 'wake up' so the library becomes non responsive for a few seconds for each drives. This is pretty annoying if you have several drives.
So the Red drives wouldn't behave like that, correct?

I actually prefer this. I don't want a server with 10 drives spinning at full speed 24-7 simply because I don't want to wait for a few seconds.

Saves on wear, heat, noise, cost, etc. I have 2 seconds to spare for that.
Reply
#22
(2012-08-29, 00:44)Arkitket Wrote: In terms of of a HTPC with a SSD for OS and a HDD for Media, would a Red be better than a Green if the HTPC is always going to be on or in standby/sleep?

Green

Reply
#23
Are the advantages of the Red over Green drives outlined in this post really worth the investment, especially if were only using them to store media?
Reply
#24
(2012-08-28, 18:06)KraziJoe Wrote:
(2012-08-28, 09:25)jaochoo Wrote: What makes a drive a NAS drive vs. a Desktop drive?

Marketing.

Big Grin

Head park can be disabled. With redundancy and backups cheaper drives are still viable.
If I helped out pls give me a +

A bunch of XBMC instances, big-ass screen in the basement + a 20TB FreeBSD, ZFS server.
Reply
#25
(2012-08-29, 01:08)assassin Wrote:
(2012-08-29, 00:19)ArieS Wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but an advantage that I see would be that the Red is always on.

Right now with the Green, my problem is while browsing my library the disks have to 'wake up' so the library becomes non responsive for a few seconds for each drives. This is pretty annoying if you have several drives.
So the Red drives wouldn't behave like that, correct?

I actually prefer this. I don't want a server with 10 drives spinning at full speed 24-7 simply because I don't want to wait for a few seconds.

Saves on wear, heat, noise, cost, etc. I have 2 seconds to spare for that.
Hmmm, reading the reviews, it looks like the Red is superior to the Green in every category you listed, besides cost. And it will consume less power so the cost shouldn't be 1:1...

Box 1: ODroid N2+ 4GB
Box 2: Intel NUC D34010WYK (Windows afedchin's Krypton MVC Build)
Box 3: Vero 4K
RIP schimi2k | I miss you buddy :(
Reply
#26
Thank you guys for the info on the RED's....

Price wise they are expensive at the moment. I need 3 new Hd's for a new build and they need to be from WD as my friend don't want anything else.

Anyone here have the WD20EARX?

Wondering if the WDIdle3 to stop the parking of the head is required for them or not?

Thanx...Wink
Reply
#27
(2012-08-29, 09:37)Beer40oz Wrote: Wondering if the WDIdle3 to stop the parking of the head is required for them or not?
What's that? I have a WD20EARX but so far (until I can start building) I only use it in an external enclosure to fill it with media. It's basically running since a month now 24/7 downloading binaries from the Usenet and I didn't have any issues. Nevertheless, would like to know what that WDIdle3 is and if I could run into any issues..
Reply
#28
(2012-08-29, 10:09)jaochoo Wrote: What's that? I have a WD20EARX but so far (until I can start building) I only use it in an external enclosure to fill it with media. It's basically running since a month now 24/7 downloading binaries from the Usenet and I didn't have any issues. Nevertheless, would like to know what that WDIdle3 is and if I could run into any issues..

The WDIdle3 will disable the drive-park times that most WD HD's perform(Factory default) after about 8000ms of idle time or so. This is not needed if your using raid software that will spin-down your drives automatically like unRAID does!

(2012-08-29, 09:37)Beer40oz Wrote: Wondering if the WDIdle3 to stop the parking of the head is required for them or not?
Thanx...Wink
Yes...!! I just bought two of them this past week to add to my new unRAID build and the WDIdle3 will work to disable the drive-park timer! NewEgg had them for $94 a piece.
Reply
#29
I've used the wdidle3 on my 3tb rx drives, in a 5 bay Synology 1511+ raid 5 setup. You can't disable the parking but you can set it to 6 mins which works well. I've had my setup for 6 months running without a glitch. Super quiet setup and runs very cool with no fan noise. Would recommend this to anyone.

As for wdidle3 use, it's not a script and it will only run on a dos boot disc. Search online, there are plenty ready made to go.
Reply
#30
(2012-08-29, 07:30)ArieS Wrote:
(2012-08-29, 01:08)assassin Wrote:
(2012-08-29, 00:19)ArieS Wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but an advantage that I see would be that the Red is always on.

Right now with the Green, my problem is while browsing my library the disks have to 'wake up' so the library becomes non responsive for a few seconds for each drives. This is pretty annoying if you have several drives.
So the Red drives wouldn't behave like that, correct?

I actually prefer this. I don't want a server with 10 drives spinning at full speed 24-7 simply because I don't want to wait for a few seconds.

Saves on wear, heat, noise, cost, etc. I have 2 seconds to spare for that.
Hmmm, reading the reviews, it looks like the Red is superior to the Green in every category you listed, besides cost. And it will consume less power so the cost shouldn't be 1:1...

I don't think that's necessarily the case. I want my drives to spin down when not in use --- this isn't some business or website server where I need all drives accessible 24-7. Many studies have also found that MTBF is about the same in enterprise vs non-enterprise drives. It will also take a looooong time to recoup that 1 watt of difference in power consumption (even less when the drive spins down in a software based raid array) which will likely take longer than the life of the drive to achieve.

I am not saying the red drives are bad. I am saying that I will not pay a 30-40% increase in price for a red drive when I likely will never notice or need the added touted benefits and certainly won't recoup the cost in energy savings.
Reply

Logout Mark Read Team Forum Stats Members Help
Western Digital Green Vs Red for Server0