[DEAD] WD reds 4/8TB $90/$200 via shucking - update, 8TB reds now $180, 4TB deal looks dead.
- Thread starter woodshop2300
- Start date
Notice: Page may contain affiliate links for which we may earn a small commission through services like Amazon Affiliates or Skimlinks.
Yes, that is what I had noticed too. The 10TB EFAX had much lower power draw, yet significantly higher sustained read speeds - more than the modest differences between other members of the RED family - leading me to wonder if there is a more significant platform change on the EFAX drives.
Man... the 8tb's have been on sale since Saturday and they're still at $169. I'm already in for two, running a mirrored pair in FreeBSD. I'm really tempted to get another 4 and go back to a Z2 array at 29TiB... I only have about 10TiB of stuff total, but about half of that is movies that I don't watch.
I've still yet to unload my old 3tb Seagates though. Choices choices...
I've still yet to unload my old 3tb Seagates though. Choices choices...
So has anyone measured the idle power draw of the new thai drives with 256M cache?
Just curious since WD doesn't have such a model listed and it's only for 10T version that i see 256M cache is mentioned.
Just curious since WD doesn't have such a model listed and it's only for 10T version that i see 256M cache is mentioned.
I posted a table that I put together a couple weeks ago comparing serial numbers, model numbers etc between the known drives in these best buy drives with WD tech specs..
short.. I believe that the thai 8tb drive (which does not exist as a WD product) is indeed a derivative of the WD10tb drive.. the number sequencing, case design etc all point to that ...
therefor its also my assumption that these should be at or better than the 10tb power specs.. because they either just firmwared out the inner (slower) tracks and slowed down the drive speed from the 7200rpm version.. or its running 1 less platter.. or possibly still .. and this is a better bet given the price and that this drive is indeed not even a product.. that there were significantly enough issues either with bad sectors or something that they could not qualify for a 10TB drive and were mapped out into a 8tb drive to reduce scrapping.
again.. all suppositions but supported by at least anecdotally by serial and part numbering ...
short.. I believe that the thai 8tb drive (which does not exist as a WD product) is indeed a derivative of the WD10tb drive.. the number sequencing, case design etc all point to that ...
therefor its also my assumption that these should be at or better than the 10tb power specs.. because they either just firmwared out the inner (slower) tracks and slowed down the drive speed from the 7200rpm version.. or its running 1 less platter.. or possibly still .. and this is a better bet given the price and that this drive is indeed not even a product.. that there were significantly enough issues either with bad sectors or something that they could not qualify for a 10TB drive and were mapped out into a 8tb drive to reduce scrapping.
again.. all suppositions but supported by at least anecdotally by serial and part numbering ...
I got around to running some benchmarks using HD Tune Pro on 2 drives each of WD80EFZX and WD80EFAX shucked from their housings. One of each model had data on it, and one of each was empty.
Units in MB/s except where specified
WD80EFZX (128MB Cache) - Drive #1 (Drive contained data)
Min Max Avg Access Burst CPU
Read 83.4 184.5 143.1 16.00ms 251.7 0.7%
WD80EFZX (128MB Cache) - Drive #2 (Empty Drive)
Min Max Avg Access Burst CPU
Read 83.4 184.5 143.2 16.00ms 243.5 0.6%
Write 87.8 187.6 141.4 11.60ms 175.4 0.7%
WD80EFAX (256MB Cache) - Drive #1 (Drive contained data)
Min Max Avg Access Burst CPU
Read 83.7 195.9 149.7 15.40ms 247.3 0.8%
WD80EFAX (256MB Cache) - Drive #2 (Empty Drive)
Min Max Avg Access Burst CPU
Read 90.6 195.5 150.4 15.30ms 241.9 0.9%
Write Run1 90.9 192.9 150.0 2.63ms 144.5 0.8%
Write Run2 87.8 193.2 149.5 2.52ms 143.1 0.8%
WD80EFAX does benchmark a little faster across the board except for "Write access time" which is MUCH faster -- I had to run the Write test twice to verify the result. My guess is that the with more cache, the WD80EFAX can dedicate more space to caching writes and that the writes generated by HD Tune Pro fit into the larger cache?
PS: Sorry, I typed this post with the results neatly formatted but it stripped all the spaces after posting and I don't know how to insert a <CODE> tag in here. I think you make out the results anyway.
Units in MB/s except where specified
WD80EFZX (128MB Cache) - Drive #1 (Drive contained data)
Min Max Avg Access Burst CPU
Read 83.4 184.5 143.1 16.00ms 251.7 0.7%
WD80EFZX (128MB Cache) - Drive #2 (Empty Drive)
Min Max Avg Access Burst CPU
Read 83.4 184.5 143.2 16.00ms 243.5 0.6%
Write 87.8 187.6 141.4 11.60ms 175.4 0.7%
WD80EFAX (256MB Cache) - Drive #1 (Drive contained data)
Min Max Avg Access Burst CPU
Read 83.7 195.9 149.7 15.40ms 247.3 0.8%
WD80EFAX (256MB Cache) - Drive #2 (Empty Drive)
Min Max Avg Access Burst CPU
Read 90.6 195.5 150.4 15.30ms 241.9 0.9%
Write Run1 90.9 192.9 150.0 2.63ms 144.5 0.8%
Write Run2 87.8 193.2 149.5 2.52ms 143.1 0.8%
WD80EFAX does benchmark a little faster across the board except for "Write access time" which is MUCH faster -- I had to run the Write test twice to verify the result. My guess is that the with more cache, the WD80EFAX can dedicate more space to caching writes and that the writes generated by HD Tune Pro fit into the larger cache?
PS: Sorry, I typed this post with the results neatly formatted but it stripped all the spaces after posting and I don't know how to insert a <CODE> tag in here. I think you make out the results anyway.
Last edited:
that information is actually really helpful ; thank you. however, it looks like the differences in performance is pretty negligible?
Well, I did say "a little faster" and it is across the board. Eyeballing the results, I see a consistent minimum of 5 percent faster and significantly faster for write access time although I'm sure caching is coming into play there.
On the scoreboard of comparing drives on
1) Price = TIE
2) Capacity = TIE
3) Performance = WINNER EFAX. (From above: Conservatively 5 percent faster)
4) Power usage = UNKNOWN so TIE, but likely EFAX is notably lower and therefore the winner.
Official specs for 10TB EFAX show NOTABLY lower power usage ratings than 8TB EFZX. It is highly likely that the 8TB EFAX would be not be any higher than the 10TB EFAX and therefore also be notably lower than the EFZX. While I must rate it at a TIE on this board without evidence, in my mind, I'm putting my money on the 8TB EFAX
5) Reliability = UNKNOWN so TIE.
Same class of drives and spec sheets for 10TB EFAX and 8TB EFZX show same workload and error ratings. I can't think of any logical argument why one would be more or less reliable than the other. I'm sure it's just luck of the draw, so I'll call it a TIE
Agreed, that it's nothing earth shattering that I would undertake the effort of ripping out any existing EFZX to replace them , but I don't see any downsides to EFAX and.
So, IF I get a choice, I'll prefer the 5 percent plus performance improvement and likely lower power usage of the EFAX.
On the scoreboard of comparing drives on
1) Price = TIE
2) Capacity = TIE
3) Performance = WINNER EFAX. (From above: Conservatively 5 percent faster)
4) Power usage = UNKNOWN so TIE, but likely EFAX is notably lower and therefore the winner.
Official specs for 10TB EFAX show NOTABLY lower power usage ratings than 8TB EFZX. It is highly likely that the 8TB EFAX would be not be any higher than the 10TB EFAX and therefore also be notably lower than the EFZX. While I must rate it at a TIE on this board without evidence, in my mind, I'm putting my money on the 8TB EFAX
5) Reliability = UNKNOWN so TIE.
Same class of drives and spec sheets for 10TB EFAX and 8TB EFZX show same workload and error ratings. I can't think of any logical argument why one would be more or less reliable than the other. I'm sure it's just luck of the draw, so I'll call it a TIE
Agreed, that it's nothing earth shattering that I would undertake the effort of ripping out any existing EFZX to replace them , but I don't see any downsides to EFAX and.
So, IF I get a choice, I'll prefer the 5 percent plus performance improvement and likely lower power usage of the EFAX.
Last edited:
Just a thought, but I find it kinda funny how much people that don't have a clue what a RAID array is get excited about WD Reds. The main difference from other drives is TLER, which I would NOT want in a normal drive. I'm loving getting them for stupid cheap, but I don't understand why WD put Reds in an external drive at all.
Additional value of Red series: vibration tolerance, designed for 100% spin duty cycle, seek performance, etc. There is lots more to the Red series drives than TLER. In fact, TLER may be the most over-hyped "feature" in the history of storage, since it is nothing more than dialing back WD's over-aggressive CRC recovery timers in the firmware (selling as a "feature" the removal of something that never did any good for consumer drives anyway).
I think the biggest reason they stuff these in the externals is because they have them...nothing more. The other drive series aren't readily available yet in 8 & 10 TB sizes (or they weren't when this product released earlier this year). Its still possible that these are drives that didn't completely pass QA to be boxed/sold as Red with the full warranty. Time will tell.
Wild-ass-guess: ST4000DM000.
That's what came in a Seagate external that I shucked a few years ago. I'm actually running badblocks on it right now because I'm not sure it works any more.