WD Red Pro 6 TB Review - High Performance NAS HDD Gets a Capacity Bump

62 Comments

View All Comments

• DanNeely - Tuesday, September 8, 2015 - link

  Except for upper end enterprise it's still probably too early to add 10gbe to a nas test suite.
  
  A few years back I remember reading that there was a process threshold that a lot of people were expecting to dramatically drive down the high power cost of sending a 10gb signal over twisted pair connections. Unfortunately I don't remember if it was 14nm; in which case we should start to see lower power hardware within a year or 10 nm; in which case we'll probably end up waiting until closer to 2020 before getting in in our boxes.

• Hannibal80 - Wednesday, September 9, 2015 - link

  Yes, that's absolutely true, my nas waste same power on the 10gbe adapter and on cpu and that's crazy. Still, with HD and then 4k videos, raw pics near or over 50MB each, old good hdd disks which continue to improve, 1gbe is going to be too limiting...
  2020 is really far away! ☺

• Jaybus - Wednesday, September 9, 2015 - link

  We could well see copper Ethernet being replaced by then. IBM just announced in May a 100 Gb/s transceiver using the first fully integrated wavelength multiplexed chip. The optical components are on-chip along side the electronic components. This integration is what will bring the price of optical Ethernet down to parity with copper. It will be a huge bump in bandwidth and power reduction. It is telling that the 100G consortium is already increasing the max distance to 1 km.

• Sivar - Tuesday, September 8, 2015 - link

  I've been using the Western Digital's NAS with these drives, WD EX2100, since April. Very solid unit. Really easy to set up, and includes advanced features when needed such as link aggregation.

• lundgsi2@yahoo.co.uk - Tuesday, September 8, 2015 - link

  thats great can't wait to get my hands on these
  www.hardwarecomputerstore.co.uk

• ex_User - Wednesday, September 9, 2015 - link

  I believe you have an error in specs. "Non-Recoverable Read Errors / Bits Read" for Red Pro is "<10 in 10^15", not 10^14.
  http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/SpecSheet/EN...

• asmian - Thursday, September 10, 2015 - link

  No, they are right - 10 in 10^15 is exactly the same as 1 in 10^14. It's written/marketed that way to confuse and look much better than it really is.
  
  Using a less than sign doesn't really change the base order of magnitude - eg. 9 in 10^15 would be consistent with their PDF table claim and it is still almost 10 times worse than any enterprise drive at 1 in 10^15 URE, which is why non-enterprise are not worth buying at these fail-likely sizes if you value your data.

• ex_User - Thursday, September 10, 2015 - link

  Well, that misleading marketing works very well on laymen like me -- only after your post have I noticed the <1/<10 trick.

• leexgx - Saturday, September 12, 2015 - link

  i agree that <1/<10 is Very misleading, so they have reduced or not added more error correction on these drives

• leexgx - Saturday, September 12, 2015 - link

  but if you getting unrecoverable read errors at that point you should replace the HDD as there is a problem with the drive, like i need to replace my segate {as the theme goes with seagate drives} as its slowly developing reallocated sectors, surprisingly its still working fine