>>29128352 (OP)
>i'm a girl

reported

>p.s. I'm a girl
why even say that shit, nobody here cares if your a girl?

>>29128352 (OP)
reported

Prove it.

WD is the worst hard drive manufacturer

yes they are excellent.

>>29128435
Except the opposite is true.

>>29128453
WD is the worst hard drive purchaser?

The reason why 3TB drives were reported to be bad in the past was be...

>p.s. I'm a girl

P.S. I'm a boy. No-one cares.

>>29128462
MD is the best soft stop purchaser

>>29128435
0/10

>>29128462
Wouldn't that be "WD is the best hard drive purchaser"?

>>29128352 (OP)
>p.s. I'm a girl

Tits or get the fuck out, whore.

ps i'm a boy

>>29128485
MD isn't the best soft stop purchaser

File: 1353113635490.png-(42 KB, 594x521, WD30EFRX_Benchmark.png)

WD30EFRX - 3TB Red

File: 1353113675220.png-(42 KB, 594x521, WD30EZRX_Benchmark.png)

WD30EZRX - 3TB Green

>>29128352 (OP)
just buy 4 2tb drives and put them in raid 6

>>29128554
2tb drives are significantly more expensive and have shittier warranties

>>29128558
the fuck, how are they more expensive

>>29128462
>>29128485

DW is the best soft stop destroyer.

>>29128591
I don't know pig fucker, go ask the manufacturers

>>29128626
ZOMG how'd you know my secret

>remember reading bad things about 3TB drives here before
What you read was poor 12 year olds who don't actually own any 3TB drives and have little to no personal experience talking out of their asses. Yes, higher capacity drives have a statistically higher chance of failure just from the fact they have more platter, more parts to fail, etc. But the statistical difference is negligible. Furthermore these retards who talk out of their ass are basing their adopted opinion on things like ratings on newegg, another retarded thing to base anything on, given the fact the small percentage of people who were unlucky enough to get a bad drive are significantly more likely to express their butthurt than someone who got a good drive is to write any review whatsoever.

iirc they are for NAS storage, wouldnt ever put one of those in my tower, better off with black drives

>>29128678
blues or greens are better than reds for general usage
blacks are more for a scratch drive or boot drive

>>29128678
>>29128695
I have an SSD so this shit is irrelephant to me. I'm just looking for price:googabit.

>>29128723
best price per gb
are 7200 barracudas as their like 23gb per £

>>29128530
>>29128542
Looks like fairly linear gains when going from Green -> Red, but I wonder why the access time is so much better on the Green. I have a WD Caviar Green drive myself from a few years ago, and even though it's only 5400 RPM, it still performs surprisingly well.

File: 1353114463105.png-(39 KB, 420x383, ss (2012-11-11 at 09.28.15).png)

>>29128695

wd black drives, mass storage at high speeds

>>29128678
>they are for NAS storage
They are not "FOR" NAS storage. They are MARKETED for NAS Storage.

Reds are basically updated greens...with 1TB platters and newer generation parts, only "for" NAS in that they have updated firmware which causes less problems for certain NAS with wonky error control. There is no incompatability, or detriment in using a Red in a tower other than extra cost. In fact if you don't care about the price difference, there is absolutely no reason not to get a red over a green, they are faster, less prone to failure, longer warranty, etc.

>>29128352 (OP)
>expects us to care > is girl
>is retarded

>>29128773
Sauce? Also, warranty is important to me. I don't want any one-year bullshit.

>>29128829
ketchup, mustard or brown

>>29128404
free bumps cause is girl
actually pretty smart
im going to say is girl next time

>>29128780
They probably sacrifices access times when they were optimizing the controller to get a bit more throughput. A fair sacrifice given these are storage drives and access times not really a limiting factor except when you're using the drive to access hundreds/thousands of small files like for an OS drive, and you should be using a red or green for an OS drive.

i have nothing against 3TB drives, but i'm currently running 5x2TB drives because 3TB weren't available when i built my server

i say get 3, put them in raid5 and forget about it

>>29128891
>raid5
Are you from 2001?

>>29128909
can't raid 5 just be the poorfags raid 6

>>29128945
>raid5
DEPRECIATED.jpg

>>29128945
Don't listen to that dolt, RAID 6 is fucking pointless for a home solution. Not worth wasting another 20% of your space just to prevent double failure, in most cases you can survive the rebuild if you're just clever with your purchasing and usability times.

>>29128808
This. I've found posts on their official forums that they work fine. Several other sources don't disagree but note they should be used in NAS systems. I would only agree with this for the fact that you are paying more for NAS-oriented features.

Given the fact that they have a longer warranty and are a better drive altogether, I'd say the $20 more I paid for the Red over the green is worth it. They can be had on Amazon for $150.

File: 1353115332590.png-(58 KB, 417x376, Untitled.png)

I was too impatient to let it run long test, so I don't know what to make of this. Caviar Black 1tb.

yes

they apparently are very silent / produce little heat
and they're meant to run 24/7

i'd get a red right now if mean green would die

>>29129221
*my

File: 1353115766036.png-(38 KB, 417x376, deathstar.png)

>>29129135
Here's my 3 old hitachi drive on the same test.

File: 1353115800617.png-(37 KB, 594x521, WD2002FAEX.png)

>>29129135
Thats an unrealistic skewed result of a Black's performance caused by you setting the test file on crystaldiskmark to only 50MB.

>>29129296
Damn my Sata II mobo.

File: 1353116103890.png-(42 KB, 422x377, intel330.png)

>>29129416
Oops forgot pic.

>>29129311
Yea I figured it wasn't accurate but I'm having fun fucking around anyways.

>>29129135

That's just fucking wrong, period. No modern hard drive, not even VelociRaptors, can produce such results in CrystalDiskMark, not even fucking close to that.

Even VelociRaptors can't kick out more than roughly 140-160MB/s sustained reads, so I know for a fuckin' fact that your results are horribly wrong.

Figure I'd ask here.

I need an adequate, cost effecting way to manage ~9tb from a non-server computer.

I was originally going to put 4x1 3tb drives in raid 5, but this thread and forums dissuaded me.

>>29129606

9 wd black 1TB drives in a RAID 0, do it if you have some balls

>>29129795
Well I need data redundancy. Got told to jbod them and manually back up but that'd require another 9tb and I just don't have the money.

>>29129828
What's wrong with doing raid 1+0?

>>29129828
RAID != Back up

>>29129828

data recovery is for people who worry about the future, dont be one of those people

>>29129870
How the fuck is RAID not back up? It can only fail if your controller royally fucks up or you're a complete retard

>>29129882
waiting

>>29130025
>>29129882
>A RAID system used as secondary storage is not an alternative to backing up data.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID
It only protects you against HDD failure, things like user error, software error or even disasters still aren´t covered.
The best thing to do is a RAID solution with off site backups, be it cloud or an external HDD you keep at another place or whatever.

>>29130146
Your point is completely moot. For home solutions, any serious natural disasters are going to destroy backup drives too, and software error? Really? Like what m8?

It's obvious that you don't have backups, but RAID protects well enough from data loss just the same

>>29128803
>0.6mb/s 4k reads
>high speeds
pick one.

get a fucking SSD

so 2x 3TB REDs with 3-year warranty are more than 2x 3TB Seagates with newegg 3-year replacement added on.
which should I get?

>>29129882

The drives in a RAID situation are powered on for real-time access to the redundant data - a true backup is something you make and then store (hopefully in a safe place) for later retrieval if absolutely necessary.

RAID != Backup

It's a common mistake that ignorant people make, don't worry about it.

>>29130376
What's the price difference?

>>29130393
see
>>29130194
and
>>29129882