Battle of the 4 TB NAS Drives: WD Red and Seagate NAS HDD Face-Off
by Ganesh T S on September 4, 2013 6:00 AM EST- Posted in
- NAS
- Seagate
- HDDs
- Western Digital
- Enterprise
Miscellaneous Factors & Final Words
Power consumption measurement was done by running our standard IOMeter disk performance bench on a CIFS share in the LenovoEMC PX2-300D (single disk in a JBOD configuration). The following table summarizes the power consumption of the NAS unit at the wall under various operating modes.
| 4 TB NAS Hard Drive Face-Off: LenovoEMC PX2-300D Power Consumption | ||||
| Mode | WD Red | Seagate NAS HDD | WD Se | WD Re |
| Idle | 18.25 W | 19.29 W | 22.67 W | 23.68 W |
| Max. Throughput (100% Reads) | 19.51 W | 20.56 W | 23.54 W | 24.53 W |
| Real Life (60% Random, 65% Reads) | 19.58 W | 20.60 W | 23.95 W | 24.49 W |
| Max. Throughput (50% Reads) | 19.67 W | 20.63 W | 24.11 W | 24.41 W |
| Random 8 KB (70% Reads) | 19.07 W | 20.98 W | 23.54 W | 23.68 W |
The above numbers suggest that the WD Red is the most power-efficient of all the considered models. This was definitely on the cards once it was determined that the WD Red operates at 5400 rpm while the Seagate NAS HDD operates at 5900 rpm. Disks running at 7200 rpm have a significant power penalty.
Concluding Remarks
Coming to the business end of the review, one must note that both Western Digital and Seagate have put forward convincing offerings for the 1-5 bay NAS market. While the Seagate unit manages to win most of the performance tests, it comes at the cost of an increase in power consumption. 1-5 bay NAS system users looking for top performance at lower price points might do well to take a look at the Seagate NAS HDD. On the other hand, if a cool-running system is the need of the hour and performance is not a major concern, the WD Red makes an excellent choice. We have also been very impressed with WD's response to various user complaints about the first generation Red drives. Seagate's track record with the NAS HDD is pretty small since the drives started shipping just a couple of months ago. As the drives get more widespread, compatibility issues (if any) get resolved and more user field reports become public.
Sometimes, the expected workloads become too heavy (> 150 TB/yr) for the consumer NAS drives to handle. Under those circumstances, the WD Se and WD Re are excellent choices. The WD Se can handle up to 180 TB/yr and the WD Re can go up to 550 TB/yr. Thanks to their higher rotational speed (7200 rpm), the enterprise grade drives have much better performance on the whole. We have also been using the WD Re drives for evaluation of various NAS systems. The disks have gone through countless rebuilds for test purposes and are still going strong. We have no qualms in standing behind the WD Re drives for very heavy NAS workloads.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
54 Comments
View All Comments
Rick83 - Wednesday, September 4, 2013 - link
I think the Re at least is only relevant when you are space or controller constrained, as otherwise getting a second cheaper disk is probably going to give better speed and reliability on average.Generally, I'd have preferred a comparison with the cheaper drives, as I don't see the point of spending more on something that will probably have the same observed failure rates in real usage, and will saturate Gbit LAN when streaming
Of course, if you commit to only a 2-bay NAS, then it might pay off to go with disks with slightly tighter tolerances and more thorough QA, but once you hit 4+ bays, there's rarely a reason to not just throw redundancy at the problem.
colleenames - Thursday, September 5, 2013 - link
hyVMguy - Wednesday, September 4, 2013 - link
Excellent review. Very helpful for allowing us to select drives to target specific workloads in smaller (or budget constrained) environments.Are you planning to continue this style of review with other ESATA/SAS drives such as the Constellation.2? Those drives seem to enjoy wider OEM support and are in the same price range as the Se/Re.
Thanks!
VMguy - Wednesday, September 4, 2013 - link
Er, sorry. that should have read Constellation ES.3edlee - Wednesday, September 4, 2013 - link
I wish you did a temperature torture test, would have loved to see the results.arthur449 - Wednesday, September 4, 2013 - link
Running the hard drive(s) at temperatures beyond their stated maximum simply decreases their lifespan; it won't cause a dramatic failure or lead to an escape scenario for the magic smoke within the drive. At least, not for the duration that Ganesh T S devoted to this comparison.tuxRoller - Wednesday, September 4, 2013 - link
I thought Goggle's data showed this (higher temperature implies lower lifecycle) to be false?bobbozzo - Thursday, September 5, 2013 - link
Google said that temperature variations WITHIN A NORMAL DATACENTER ENVIRONMENT did not noticably affect drive failure rates.e.g. none were overheating.
dingetje - Wednesday, September 4, 2013 - link
would like to see the plattercount of the 4tb red confirmedganeshts - Wednesday, September 4, 2013 - link
Confirmed to be four 1 TB platters.