That would seem to be faster than suggested by the reviews.
wd10efrx
- Thread starter tigerstyle
- Start date
That would seem to be faster than suggested by the reviews.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 6,888
- Location
- Wales
Sounds very good. What enclosure you using or is it in a rig?
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 6,888
- Location
- Wales
Wish this drive was more readily available
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 6,888
- Location
- Wales
In case anyone's interested I just had an email form ocuk saying they hope these drives will be here by the end of the week.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 6,888
- Location
- Wales
Really? Al reviews I ahve seen have been very positive performance wise. What device are you using yours in?
Mine is in my rig! They are fantastic drives and i honestly cannot fault them, WD have filled a void in the market!
Mine are absolutely fine, how is/are yours setup?
post a screenshot from hdtune and have a look at the access times.
unless the 1tb version is considerably faster than the 2 and 3tb versions the reds have on average 20ms read access times. which make them very poor for os use and poor for handling lots of small files like multiple photos etc.
unless the 1tb version is considerably faster than the 2 and 3tb versions the reds have on average 20ms read access times. which make them very poor for os use and poor for handling lots of small files like multiple photos etc.
Yeah according the HD tune you are correct.
But i have to stay i am still mighty impressed with my pair.
well as you can see from the screenshot above the access time is well over 20ms which is a joke.
even green edition drives manage 15ms access times and as such has a higher iop count when you do the random read test.
all these drives may be good for is holding large files such as films, and even then if your streaming multiple files to multiple clients there may be issues with stuttering.
im gonna stick to the green edition and the seagate 7200.14 series which is considerably quicker.
take a look at my 3tb seagate:
drive is powered off 80% of the time and only powers on when its needed in my server. and when in use its soo quick that once iv finished copying files etc it can go back into standby and power off which is better for lower power usage.
even green edition drives manage 15ms access times and as such has a higher iop count when you do the random read test.
all these drives may be good for is holding large files such as films, and even then if your streaming multiple files to multiple clients there may be issues with stuttering.
im gonna stick to the green edition and the seagate 7200.14 series which is considerably quicker.
take a look at my 3tb seagate:
drive is powered off 80% of the time and only powers on when its needed in my server. and when in use its soo quick that once iv finished copying files etc it can go back into standby and power off which is better for lower power usage.
While you are correct that the Seagate drive you mentioned is quicker, it is slightly unfair to compare them since it is a 7200rpm drive compared to the 5400rpm for the WD.
Also, the 1 year warranty versus the 3 year for the WD is a consideration, although, of course, that does not mean that it is certain to fail before the Red drive.
You also mentioned that the Red's are only suited for larger files, but since they are targeted for NAS storage arrays, I think it is just a case of WD aiming performance for their target market.
After all, I am sure they could have specified the drive to be 7200rpm and much quicker, but then it would probably have cost £50 more than the Green for the 2Tb version and few people would be then prepared to pay the difference.
For me, it is the cost that is the most attractive feature, since the only other alternative from WD would be the RE4's, which are too expensive to be considered.
Also, the 1 year warranty versus the 3 year for the WD is a consideration, although, of course, that does not mean that it is certain to fail before the Red drive.
You also mentioned that the Red's are only suited for larger files, but since they are targeted for NAS storage arrays, I think it is just a case of WD aiming performance for their target market.
After all, I am sure they could have specified the drive to be 7200rpm and much quicker, but then it would probably have cost £50 more than the Green for the 2Tb version and few people would be then prepared to pay the difference.
For me, it is the cost that is the most attractive feature, since the only other alternative from WD would be the RE4's, which are too expensive to be considered.
Last edited:
the issue here is that with the reds they are just there for sequential speeds, with an access time of over 20ms they will loose a lot of speed when copying lots of smaller sized files.
strange thing is that the green drives are just as fast on sequentials, but a big jump quicker in access times.
where do the reds fit in?
for me id either go for a green or a black/re4, cant see the point of the red.
may even look into the seagate constellation series.
strange thing is that the green drives are just as fast on sequentials, but a big jump quicker in access times.
where do the reds fit in?
for me id either go for a green or a black/re4, cant see the point of the red.
may even look into the seagate constellation series.