• JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’ve thought WD was sleezy ever since they secretly switched from CMR drives to SMR drives, including in their NAS products (for which SMR drives are particularly unsuitable). So this doesn’t surprise me at all.

    People need to stop buying WD drives and buy Seagate instead. They had their own SMR scandal, but at least they never put them in their NAS drives.

    • bosnia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I owned three Seagates, two of which were used for backups, and had all of them die on me within 1-2 years of light use. I vowed to never buy Seagate again after that.

    • derpgon@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I used to buy Seagate, but they broke twice or thrice as fast as WD. But that was 8-10 years ago. Are they better now?

      • Inktvip@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Each manufacturer has their bad batches tbh. I’ve got 12 WD 3TB’s that have been running without a single failure for years, but of the six 4TB WD’s that I bought later five have died already. I’ve been replacing those with 8TB ironwolfs, which have so far been behaving well.

    • 🖖USS-Ethernet@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      From what I understand, SMR is fine for NAS as long as you aren’t doing a lot of reads. Like hosting a multimedia server that pulls videos and stuff from the NAS. I recently stood up a TrueNAS server a few months ago with SMR WD disks and it works fine for my use case. It’s RAIDed and backed up to cloud storage. I’m now looking into standing up a media server, but I won’t use that NAS storage for that.

      • JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        The real downside to SMR drives is “random” writes; adjacent tracks need to be re-written, and then their adjacent tracks, and that keeps going until the tracks adjacent to a write happen to be empty. It doesn’t matter much for long sequential writes (because adjacent tracks will be overwritten anyway). I think the re-writing process also hurts read performance for the host, but reads alone don’t cause rewriting.

        If you need to reshape/resilver your array (grow, shrink, or change geometry), it’ll probably take weeks or months with an SMR drive compared to days for a CMR drive.

      • Bluetreefrog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I got burned by WD’s secret SMR drives in my home NAS and they sucked! They were marketed as NAS drives, but the performance was abominable, the failed sector count grew steadily from day 1 and it felt like they failed 1 early. Once the whole sordid fiasco came to light I switched to Seagate CMR drives and everything has been mostly OK since then.

  • Margot Robbie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Hynix Gold/Platinum are good, in case anyone is looking for replacements for their NVMe SSDs.