Feature Set Comparison

Enterprise hard drives come with features such as real time linear and rotational vibration correction, dual actuators to improve head positional accuracy, multi-axis shock sensors to detect and compensate for shock events and dynamic fly-height technology for increasing data access reliability. These hard drives also expose some of their interesting firmware aspects through their SATA controller, but, before looking into those, let us compare the specifications of the ten drives being considered today. Even though most of the data for all ten drives is available below, readers can view only two at a time side-by-side due to usability issues.

Comparative HDD Specifications
Aspect
Model Number WD4001FFSX WD4001FFSX
Interface SATA 6 Gbps SATA 6 Gbps
Sector Size / AF 512E 512E
Rotational Speed 7200 RPM 7200 RPM
Cache 64 MB 64 MB
Rated Load / Unload Cycles 600 K 600 K
Non-Recoverable Read Errors / Bits Read < 1 in 1014 < 1 in 1014
MTBF 1 M 1 M
Rated Workload ~ 180 TB/yr ~ 180 TB/yr
Operating Temperature Range 5 to 60 C 5 to 60 C
Acoustics (Seek Average - dBA) 34 dBA 34 dBA
Physical Parameters 14.7 x 10.16 x 2.61 cm, 750 g 14.7 x 10.16 x 2.61 cm, 750 g
Warranty 5 years 5 years
Price (in USD, as-on-date) $260 $260

A high level overview of the various supported SATA features is provided by HD Tune Pro.

A brief description of some of the SATA features is provided below:

  • S.M.A.R.T: Most readers are familiar with the SMART (Self-Monitoring, Analysis and Reporting Technology) feature, which provides drive parameters that can server as reliability indicators. Some of these include the reallocated sector count (indication of bad blocks), spin retry count (indication of problems with the spindle motors), command timeout (indication of issues with the power supply or data cable), temperature, power-on hours etc.
  • 48-bit Address: The first ATA standard specified 24 bits for the logical block address (sector), which was later updated to 28 bits. Using 28 bits, one could address up to 137.4 GB (2^28 * 2^9 bytes), which capped the SATA drive size. In 2003, an update to the standard was released to allow 48 bits for the LBA address to get past this issue. No modern SATA drive comes without support for 48-bit addresses.
  • Read Look-Ahead: Drives supporting this feature keep reading ahead even after the current command is completed. The data is transferred to the buffer for faster response to the host in the case of sequential accesses.
  • Write Cache: This feature is pretty much self-explanatory, with data being stored in the buffers prior to being committed to the platters. There is a risk of data loss due to power loss. The feature can be disabled by the end user.
  • Host Protected Area (HPA): Drives supporting this feature have some sectors hidden from the OS. It is usually used by manufacturers to store recovery data, but users can also 'hide' data by allocating sectors to the HPA.
  • Device Configuration Overlay (DCO): Drives supporting this feature can report modified drive parameters to the host.
  • Security Mode: Drives supporting this feature can help protect themselves from illegal accesses or setting of new passwords (by freezing such functions). Readers might have encountered frozen security settings for SSDs while trying to secure erase them..
  • Automatic Acoustic Management: AAM was declared obsolete in the 2010 ATA standards revision. On supported disks, it enables reduction of noise that rise from fast spin-ups of the disk. In general, configure the AAM value to something low would result in a quiet, but slow, disk, while a high value would result in a loud, but fast, disk.
  • Power Management: Support for this feature enables drives to follow specific power management state transitions via commands from the host. Supported modes include IDLE, SLEEP and STANDBY.
  • Advanced Power Management (APM): This feature allows setting of a value to allow for disk spindowns as well as adjustment of head-parking frequency. Some disks have proprietary commands for achieving this functionality (for example, the WDIDLE tool from Western Digital can be used with the Green drives).
  • Interface Power Management: Drives supporting this feature allow for fine-tuning of power consumption by being aware of various interface power modes such as PHY Ready, Partial and Slumber (in the order of power consumption). Transitions from a higher power mode to a lower one usually happen after some period of inactivity. They can be either host-initiated (HIPM) or device-initiated (DIPM). Note that these refer to the SATA interface and not the device itself. As such, they are complementary to the power management feature mentioned earlier.
  • Power-up in Standby: This SATA feature allows drives to be powered up into the Standby state to minimize inrush current at power-up and allow the host to sequence the spin-up of devices. This is particularly useful for NAS units and RAID environments. Desktop drives usually come with power management disabled, but there are jumper settings on the drive to enable controlled spin-up via ATA standard spinup commands. For drives targeting NAS units, power Power-up in Standby is enabled by default.
  • SCT Tables: The SMART Command Transport (SCT) tables feature extends the SMART protocol and provides additional information about the drive when requested by the host.
  • Native Command Queuing (NCQ):  This is an extension to the SATA protocol to allow drives to reorder the received commands for more optimal operation.
  • TRIM: This is a well known feature for readers familiar with SSDs. It is not relevant to any of the drives being discussed today.

We get a better idea of the supported features using FinalWire's AIDA64 system report. The table below summarizes the extra information generated by AIDA64 (that is not already provided by HD Tune Pro).

Comparative HDD Features
Aspect
DMA Setup Auto-Activate Supported, Disabled Supported, Disabled
Extended Power Conditions Supported, Disabled Supported, Disabled
Free-Fall Control Not Supported Not Supported
General Purpose Logging Supported, Enabled Supported, Enabled
In-Order Data Delivery Not Supported Not Supported
NCQ Priority Information Supported Supported
Phy Event Counters Supported Supported
Release Interrupt Not Supported Not Supported
Sense Data Reporting Not Supported Not Supported
Software Settings Preservation Supported, Enabled Supported, Enabled
Streaming Supported, Disabled Supported, Disabled
Tagged Command Queuing Not Supported Not Supported
4 TB NAS and Nearline Drives Face-Off: The Contenders Performance - Raw Drives
Comments Locked

62 Comments

View All Comments

  • jabber - Friday, August 8, 2014 - link

    So actually nothing important. When I see these NAS/Storage articles I just can't help with a lot of eye-rolling at what folks write. Folks spending large amounts of effort and money on data that is of little value to anyone or anything.

    I best most here would actually get by with a 2TB external USB3 HDD.if they were honest. Oh and that includes the business they work for.
  • jaden24 - Friday, August 8, 2014 - link

    Well, what you are calling unimportant is a very subjective statement. To me, spending large amounts of time, effort and money is extremely worth it. Also, much of it has paid off over time since I have properly implemented good practices. This has allowed me to share a library of movies, tv shows and music with my family in 5 different rooms via XBMC because it is all centrally located.

    Having done all of that work to offer this content would be a total waste if I didn't take proper measures to ensure it is backed up. Surely, it wouldn't be smart to let an array fail and have to re-encode and format all of that data all over again; now that would take a lot of wasted time and effort.

    Besides, a 2TB external HDD would have to be USB3 (possibly with UASP) and hooked to a USB3 controller to achieve decent, multiple streams, but it wouldn't have redundancy. Also, 2TB is only going to hold so many movies. What if you like 400-480p movies, but I prefer 720-1080p movies? All of this comes down to preference, and this alone is what determines each of our own setups to suit our tastes.
  • sapius1 - Friday, September 26, 2014 - link

    I am a professional photographer and generate about 1TB/year of original content (growing each year). I absolutely need more than a 2TB external HDD.
  • m2inor - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link

    It's very easy to legitimately consume more than 200GB on any computer let alone a server:
    - I believe in having multiple copies of personal docs and media I created: photos, personal videos, emails, installers, projects, etc
    - if you have multiple desktops and laptops, each should be backed up
    - and don't forget to backup the backup devices :-)

    Do that for 30 years, and you'll have quite a collection. Only the inciminating evidence should be deleted on a regular basis.

    Oh, and you'll only need that one file a few days after you delete it.
  • dcaxax - Friday, August 8, 2014 - link

    When comparing NAS drives, reliability is by far the #1 concern. Power consumption and noise are also important, but by no means the deciding factor.

    Testing the WD Red drives (especially given the pretty high failure rates of the plain WD Reds) without saying something about reliability makes the whole article pointless.
    IF the drives are reliable, people will chose them over faster, chepaer and probablyn even noisier drivers. If you're going to to do this you needs to test at least 10-20 drives and come up with some kind of torture test to really push them.
  • jaden24 - Friday, August 8, 2014 - link

    This is exactly why I only buy hard drives with 5yr warranties. The length of a warranty tells you a lot about the confidence of a manufacture in their product. When bad luck does arise, (usually around the 3-5yr range), you have a drive that gets replaced with no questions asked. At least that is my experience with WD.
  • cen - Friday, August 8, 2014 - link

    Too bad HGST couldn't send the deskstar version.. I bought 4 of them a month ago for my FreeNAS build, excellent drives.
  • bsd228 - Friday, August 8, 2014 - link

    Ganesh - can you put some questions out to the manufacturers and write a short article on the relevance of URE? I find it very hard to take this metric seriously when consumer drives are all marked as 'better than 1 in 10^14,' a nice round number that hasn't changed in a decade (forever?). Has there really been no improvement? Are they all really the same? And are enterprise drives precisely 10x better? Unlikely. And what is really different about them?
  • shodanshok - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link

    Hi,
    We recently discussed the URE thing on the Linux raid mailing list. You can found more info here: http://marc.info/?l=linux-raid&m=1406791003244...
  • asmian - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link

    1 post is not a "discussion". And while this may be relevant for Linux users, it doesn't help anyone else, perhaps running RAID on Windows or using a NAS, for which some at least of these drives are marketed.

    In the last discussion on this here, there was mention that ZFS (at least with double parity) can avoid UREs affecting array rebuilds. However, it looks as if Storage Spaces and the new ReFS file system now in Windows 8.1 and Windows Server can achieve the same thing as ZFS with much lower system resources (although it is necessary to bypass the Storage Spaces UI on Windows 8.1 for proper configuration). Can anyone share any experience of using ReFS, since this is quite new and directly challenges the Nas4Free/FreeNas route which requires FreeBSD as an OS? In particular, it makes a single media storage server/HTPC combo a feasible proposition, which might be very useful for many...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now