6TB Internal Drives

[BinaryData]

How do you figure? Compared to which drives? If you check the datasheets, drives with higher capacities have a higher MTBF. For instance: the HGST 6TB (Ultrastar He6) has 2.5M hours MTBF, and the Ultrastar 7k600 4TB has 2M hours MTBF.

 

 

Same as above, how did you come to that conclusion?

 

 

How is that not a backup? If he stores the data on two separate drives, does that not classify as backup? So what if both are connected to the same motherboard?

I work in a Data Center, the is a reason why EMC2 doesn't roll 6TB Drives. If you read EVERYTHING I had said, I read the comments of other people, and came to the conclusion that they have a higher failure rate than 4TB drives. Not to mention, for the price of 1 6TB drive, you can get 2 4TB Drives.

If you aren't going to bother reading what I typed, or what others have said, don't bother quoting me in a response. It's a waste of my time. Not trying to be a di** or anything.

[Odom Member]

I'm not trying to waste your time, just trying to understand how you got to that conclusion. You did your research, that is fine. I also read your and the other comments, and 90% of the opinions (not yours) are all "higher storage = higher failure rate" and I'm just trying to point out that that is not correct. Granted, the risk of failure is different when running these drives in RAID, but by itself, it is not correct to say that they are more likely to fail simply because they are bigger.

 

I'm also not debating the price, I am fully aware that they are expensive and you can get multiple cheaper ones for the same price. I would do the same, unless I am limited by my ports.

[+BudMan MVC]

I have not seen anything that says 6TB fail more than 4Tb or 3TB or 2TB, etc.. Or the 8TB other than comments here. The comment about MTBF is valid for sure if it has a higher MTBF then it should fail less often - that is what that number means.. (mean time between failures), higher number means it lasts longer..

 

Sorry but the disk failed in 3 months on some newegg/amazon review really needs to be taken with a grain of salt..  For all you know the guys psu is crap, it took a lightening hit.  His case runs at 180 F, he bounces them around while running, etc. etc.

 

To be honest I have had pretty good luck with disks through out the years, they pretty much all lasted well over life expectancy other than 1 that was DOA, I had one I replaced because it had that head parking bug and in less than a year had 300K head parks..  Have one fail that was just out of warranty..  But hey it made it past warranty which every day after that is a gift

 

The only thing holding me from buying 6TB is I have no use for that much space currently at the price point of GB/$  When it becomes cheaper than I will for sure buy them - the disks have great feature sets, etc. all the new stuff - but just not cost effective for my storage needs currently.  I have a project on my wish list to build a new esxi host this summer - more than likely it will prob replace that oldest disk and have a 2TB and 3TB in it with 1TB as junk and bigger/faster maybe SSD maybe m.2 if available at good price by then as datastore.

 

1 sector is not time to replace the disk - its just not so your throwing money away!!  As to needing more space - your just a hoarder if you ask me   You should have enough space for growth for sure, and always at a min enough space to move your ###### off your largest disk so it can be replaced or upgraded, etc.

[+longgonebn Subscriber²]

I have not seen anything that says 6TB fail more than 4Tb or 3TB or 2TB, etc.. Or the 8TB other than comments here. The comment about MTBF is valid for sure if it has a higher MTBF then it should fail less often - that is what that number means.. (mean time between failures), higher number means it lasts longer..

 

Sorry but the disk failed in 3 months on some newegg/amazon review really needs to be taken with a grain of salt..  For all you know the guys psu is crap, it took a lightening hit.  His case runs at 180 F, he bounces them around while running, etc. etc.

 

To be honest I have had pretty good luck with disks through out the years, they pretty much all lasted well over life expectancy other than 1 that was DOA, I had one I replaced because it had that head parking bug and in less than a year had 300K head parks..  Have one fail that was just out of warranty..  But hey it made it past warranty which every day after that is a gift

 

The only thing holding me from buying 6TB is I have no use for that much space currently at the price point of GB/$  When it becomes cheaper than I will for sure buy them - the disks have great feature sets, etc. all the new stuff - but just not cost effective for my storage needs currently.  I have a project on my wish list to build a new esxi host this summer - more than likely it will prob replace that oldest disk and have a 2TB and 3TB in it with 1TB as junk and bigger/faster maybe SSD maybe m.2 if available at good price by then as datastore.

 

1 sector is not time to replace the disk - its just not so your throwing money away!!  As to needing more space - your just a hoarder if you ask me   You should have enough space for growth for sure, and always at a min enough space to move your ###### off your largest disk so it can be replaced or upgraded, etc.

 

What is the point of a software telling me there is an error like bad sector, and keep bothering me about it, if its not a serious issue? lol If you says my drive ain't going to randomly die or cause corruption, then I am ok with that. And with media, yes I guess I am a hoarder lol

 

Thanks for the information. I can then hold out for awhile longer if need be, and maybe remove some things

[+BudMan MVC]

you can set the ignore so that it wont bug you again unless the number goes up, so like if you have 1 now and ignore it it will warn you again if goes to 2.. Yes I agree if the number is rising then the disk is on its way out..  But just because you have 1 that doesn't clear itself.. Those sectors should be remapped... etc..  What is the exact smart info your seeing with 1, is it

 

is it

Reallocated Sectors Count

 

Or

Uncorrectable Sector Count

 

If your seeing this USC go UP.. then you have a problem, if you have a count of 1 here that is NOT an issue..  Even if you have a larger number - as long as the number isn't going UP over time your fine.

 

Are you seeing

 

Current Pending Sector Count

 

What is the exact error your seeing?

[+Ichigo+]

NCIX has 6TB WD Green drives on right now 309.99 until the 15th of the month

[+longgonebn Subscriber²]

you can set the ignore so that it wont bug you again unless the number goes up, so like if you have 1 now and ignore it it will warn you again if goes to 2.. Yes I agree if the number is rising then the disk is on its way out..  But just because you have 1 that doesn't clear itself.. Those sectors should be remapped... etc..  What is the exact smart info your seeing with 1, is it

 

is it

Reallocated Sectors Count

 

Or

Uncorrectable Sector Count

 

If your seeing this USC go UP.. then you have a problem, if you have a count of 1 here that is NOT an issue..  Even if you have a larger number - as long as the number isn't going UP over time your fine.

 

Are you seeing

 

Current Pending Sector Count

 

What is the exact error your seeing?

It just says one or more of your drives is showing problems.

 

Current Pending Sector Count is showing 1.

 

"Number of "unstable" sectors (waiting to be remapped, because of read errors). If an unstable sector is subsequently written or read successfully, this value is decreased and the sector is not remapped. Read errors on a sector will not remap the sector (since it might be readable later); instead, the drive firmware remembers that the sector needs to be remapped, and remaps it the next time it's written."

 

"The drive is operating within manufacturer specified tolerances.

Longer bars are better."

 

"These is currently 1 unstable sector on the hard disk. An unstable sector is a sector that can't be read. The drive will automatically swap the bad sector for a good one whenever new data is written to it, however, the original data may be lost"

[+BudMan MVC]

so pending sector count being 1 is not an issue.. see the description - why should you think that should mean you should replace the drive?

[Ci7]

While I agree with replacing a drive that would be dying, how exactly do you know its dying?  Dod stablebit scanner recommend replacement?  Why do you need to jump to double the space of the drive?  How old is the drive?

 

How much space do you have for growth now, you need another 3TB?  How fast are you growing?  Buying disks to have their space sit idle while spending premium for the new toy on the block is not the best plan if you ask me..  At your rate of growth your going to need how much more space in 6 months?  Like you said its "media"  maybe its time to do a bit of house cleaning and delete some sometime you don't really need.

 

3TB prob right now is the sweet spot GB per $, quick check around for pricing seems you can get 3TB for about 2.8 cents per GB.. While 4TB are 3.5 ish and 6TB are like 4.1 cents..

 

Maybe you shouldn't be storing so much media if you can not afford the space and the number of drives you need   12 TB disk is out btw..  drives only get cheaper and faster and bigger.. Buying space that your not going to actually use is just costing you money..  I too have a disk that should be replaced - it is days away from being 6 years old, not showing signs of failure as of yet other than some uncorrectable sector count being 31, but this has not gone up in long time..  And I don't have anything of value on the drive its just junk...  I really should pull the trigger on a new disk to replace it.. But again its junk, and don't really need more space at the moment..

 

 

12TB HDD  where? o.0 biggest annoanced  10TB last sept...

 

sorry for oft

[Mindovermaster Moderator]

Tape drives go up to 25TB, or something like that.

[+longgonebn Subscriber²]

so pending sector count being 1 is not an issue.. see the description - why should you think that should mean you should replace the drive?

Because it says " the original data may be lost"

[+BudMan MVC]

Its 1 freaking sector dude - 1!!!  Out of how many??

 

C:\>fsutil fsinfo ntfsinfo d:
NTFS Volume Serial Number :       0xeeb44d1fb44cec21
Version :                         3.1
Number Sectors :                  0x000000015d4c97ff

 

so that is in hex = what 5,860,268,031 so almost 6 billion of them..  And your worried about 1??

 

Did you run chkdsk on it?  Thought you did - what did it say?  Bad sectors are just part of the disk, if you replaced drives every time they showed a bad sector your going to be changing a lot of drives..

 

12TB is external, my bad..

 

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00LEF28CI/ref=psdc_595048_t1_B009KMQPKS

 

You are right they don't have any specific single unit 12TB drives out.. But sure they are right around the corner   Didn't seagate announce that they would have 60TB drives by end of 2016? My point is that buying large when first come out your going to pay premium price..

[FiB3R]

Not sure if this has been posted... https://www.backblaze.com/blog/best-hard-drive

[BinaryData]

BudMan's really getting into this. I need popcorn. Haha.

I read the reviews to see how many people have problems with it. I've spoken to a lot of the EMC2 techs, and the 3 that work the Northwest, stated that Cost & Fail rate were the turn offs. Cost per GB isn't worth it. I believe a good cost is 10 cents / GB. Maybe less, or more, I just buy whatever I need at the time, and if I can catch a deal, done. I get it. BudMan and the research really put me off towards 6TB drives, maybe once 2nd or 3rd Gens come out, I'll upgrade. 60TB Drives, damn, that'll be the day. I want 256GB Sticks of RAM first, and true M.2 SSD, not this fake SATA III crap.

[+BudMan MVC]

There is exactly 1 reason not to buy 6TB drives currently GB/$ they are not cost effective..  All drives fail.. What is the warranty on the drive, then it should last that long.. what is the MTBF?  If it doesn't last warranty then RMA it..  Not like you not going to be buying more disks next year anyway when the 3TB SSDs are out for 2 cents a GB and 1GBps read and write and your on some slow 7200rpm platter disk has 1 bad sector on it   Or the 20TB disk comes out, etc.

 

You have storage disks you have speed disks you have archive disks.. Do you really need 1GBps read/write disk that your accessing over 100mbps wireless connection?  That you watch your movies off of on your media player when the media streams at 30mbps max anyway?  Use the right disk at the best cost for the job at hand.

 

Do you really need 6TB sitting there empty that you paid $ per GB for?  Good cost is not anywhere close to 10 btw BD.. That was cost like back in 2010, current avg cost is prob around 3 cents per GB.. Here this is one of the top selling hdd on amazon.. 

 

http://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Desktop-3-5-Inch-Internal-ST1000DM003/dp/B005T3GRNW/

For $86 for 3TB your talking less than 3 cents per GB 86/3000 your at .02866

 

What was the cost 270/6TB your more like 0.045 per GB..

 

Shoot ssd cost will prob be under 10 cents GB not that far in the future..

[FiB3R]

According to Backblaze, those 3TB Seagate drives (ST3000DM001) had very high failure rates.

After 2 years, 43.1% of 1,163 drives had failed.

[+BudMan MVC]

And yet they buy them anyway don't they!  Those are not enterprise drives.. Backblaze uses the disks way different then your user in their desktop or even the home user in their nas, etc..  Sorry but its been over and over and over again how you can not compare those drives failure rates to how a user would use the drives.  To be honest if I was seagate I would not even honer rma on those on how they are beaten to death..  They prob didn't I would take it..

 

example

he company removed the external drives from their chassis and used them in its storage pods).

 

The result? Massive failures beginning in 2013 and rising all throughout 2014

 

Really who would of ever thunk that if the drive was not used how it was designed to be used that the failure rate would go up??  Duhhhhh!!!

 

So they stopped buying user hdd for your typical user environment?  For the environment they put them in?  No they continue to do so because they are the cheapest GB/$ So they pulled this one specific model?  Not the point of my post specific model anyway.. There are other makers drives all in the same price point was my point.  10 cents per GB is outrageous if your paying that your getting ROBBED!!

 

Last time I looked at their pod design they had 45 disks in them, what temp do they run at - and lots of vibration I would think as well.. Not really your typical home user use of the drives..  So their WD RED NAS drives which you would think would be better suited for this sort of use.. Their pods could be seen as  huge as NAS couldn't it

 

"The Western Digital Red 3 TB drives annual failure rate of 7.6% is a bit high but acceptable"

 

So why are people buying WD Red Nas disks if blackblaze says they have a high failure rate, etc..

 

So as to the 6TB failures -- from this

"Currently we have 270 of the Western Digital Red 6 TB drives. The failure rate is 3.1%, but there have been only 3 failures. The statistics give a 95% confidence that the failure rate is somewhere between 0.1% and 17.1%. We need to run the drives longer, and see more failures, before we can get a better number."

 

So where is people saying they have high failure?  Etc..  Your not building enterprise storage, etc.. for home use you have to go by what manufacture says the mtbf is and warranty and how the disk is suppose to be used.

[FiB3R]

That is a fair point, and one that I have read elsewhere, but other drives in the report are also not enterprise grade, and fair much better in the results.

 

So for me personally, even with a lack of stats regarding failure rates from regular home/office use, I would choose to avoid those particular drives.

[Draconian Guppy]

Just to add, did you run any diagnostic tool upon purchasing? Discs ship with bad sectors and sometimes factories don't map them out correctly, has happened to me several times and using OEM tool or other, fixed the problem.

[+BudMan MVC]

Buy whatever you want..  Maybe those other brand drives were in different pod models where they reduced the vibration or where in spots in the pods with better cooling..  This is not a benchmark of drive performance all setup in a PC and put through its paces like you would get in your home.. These drives were used in a cheap storage in pod they designed themselves.  While they can report their failure rates all they want doesn't mean that drives that they show as low failure vs high failures are not going to fail in your house..

 

All drives FAIL, all of them..  You get new disks every few years that are faster, bigger cheaper -- so who gives a hoot if out of 1000 disks they beat to death a few % more failed from brand X vs Y??

[stockwiz]

There are some tests that show western digital green drives really are not significantly slower than any others for your typical tasks.. I wouldn't use them as a system drive but for gaming they are not appreciably slower than other drives. I hacked them to reduce the amount of head parking they do and set it at 300 seconds as the HD Tune Utility showed them climbing faster than my other drives, exceeding 20,000 load cycles despite only being used as storage drives... I have no doubt if used as gaming drives they'd probably accumulate the cycle count fairly fast.  This simple hack greatly increases their potential lifespan.

 

Simple really.. make a dos boot disk on USB flash drive. HPUSBFW.exe will do this.  Stick Wdidle.exe onto drive. Turn off computer. Unplug all non WD Green drives (you can do multiple WD green drives at the same time) ... boot into dos.

 

Following command checks current settings of all green drives connected

wdidle3.exe /r 

Following changes settings to 5 minutes (maximum value)

wdidle3.exe /s300

[:: Lyon ::]

 

I wouldn't use them as a system drive but for gaming they are not appreciably slower than other drives

 

 

I'm actually a bit worried if someone ever has a 6 TB worth of games in a drive

[Krome]

*Homer Simpson drooling* "mmm mmm... 6TB of games..." *drools*