TechyBen

This part is important in the latest video: Despite certain claim here, no one has ever said SMR is unusable as a HDD. But that certain NAS, and in this cas ZFS, tank performance to the requirement users need to know if the drive they are buying is SMR or not (drive managed or OS managed). I'll still dive out of this "discussion", but I do have to note this information, should anyone else look into this thread for info, and think SMR is fantastic, or think it's rubbish, and not just think sensibly and check their use case before deciding.

Where am I afraid of better understanding? Someone got an SMR drive, 2 of them failed building an array/raid. They replaced them with PMR drives (of the similar manufacture/design) and it built/did not fail. Thus they requested PMR drives for their arrays/raid/nas. Yes somehow, that's wrong? I'm wrong for agreeing with them that it would have been easier if they'd been told SMR/PMR so they could match up their raids. You know, like tires, bulbs, etc etc. "Materially identical" in marketing/engineering speak, 99% of the time is not the same.

Citation? Linus when he tried shingled drives. Like I think it's impossible to have a discussion with you here. There is a cache. There is a requirement for it to remap the clustered read/write/read areas. It performs differently. Thus some may wish to buy different models with different performance. Some may even wish to get SMR disks with higher cache, but if it's not specced/noted, only buying and testing internally/personally will show the differences (between brands or in a brand). Why do I waste breath on this? "I'm not buying brand X because the oxide always dies". Yeah. I know some brands and some devices. I know some processes and some products. I'm done, I'm not even reading the rest and I'm out. Not in protest. I've just got better things to do then argue over trivialities and insults.

? Is there some sort of magic that means SMR can never fail? Fact is, it's failure and function mode is different to PMR. Thus, someone asking for PMR is valid. Even if PMR is phased out (as with tube TVs, gramophones etc). It's a valid request. Faulty or perfect post singularity device... it is a valid request. Then like that customer they may buy a different product line, or eventually go with a competitor. It may not "hurt" WD, as there are enough other types of customers. But I'm not arguing for a side. There are results to the action, and they are different from putting a tiny little "SMR" or "50gb PMR cache" or "seek times while empty" etc list in the spec sheet. I don't know of Samsung getting hurt because customers won't buy the new QVO vs the old drives (which I did exactly today, purchased an EVO line because I want an EVO, not a QVO right now). They listed the difference, instead of trying to pass the QVO off as an EVO but changing 1 barcode digit. (Samsung does do similar to WD in other products though) Huh? They had a PMR array. Adding SMR to it crashed those SMR disks. That is what they said. If they decide "red cars go faster, green ones are trash and break down all the time", it's wrong, but it's their right to be wrong. We are talking about a choice and opinion on purchasing and lifestyle, not mission critical choices in life support hardware or national vaccine programs, right?

? OK. So he can ask them. That's great. You don't have a problem with him (or me, or anyone) asking them if a drive has PMR or SMR. Thanks. Can I also ask you. Are we allowed to ask them how large the PMR cache is inside the SMR drive? [edit] Hope you get to read this too, I am saying what they have done, just as you are saying what WD have done. Does not mean we agree with their reasoning does it? Besides, that person *fixed their issue by going to the PMR drives*, tech totally unrelated, the changed of a hidden spec listings, is what fixed their problem quickest/easiest).

He asked for a PMR drive. He can be told "yes or no". Right? I have that one question. Can he ask WD "Is this drive PMR or SMR"?

No. Just no. I had a manufacturers ECU specced and remapped. This is not besides the point just because you are wrong. This is incorrect, and you are deciding it is not? Who decides what I need to know? Who needs to show SMR is at fault? Can I not decide if I buy a product or not based on what it is? We do. People have tested the SMR. There is a performance gap. It has been tested. I did not claim it's "important", I claimed consumers asked to know. They wish to know. It *may* be important. The colour is *not* important to me, buy *may* be to others. So to you, SMR is not important, then you decide it must not be to them. The colour of the HDD is not important to you, so you decide the colour is not to others. You don't get to make that decision, and thus RGB SSDs exist. And people asking for PMR exists! (At least while PMR exists in their rigs and there is a choice, when all drives go to SMR we can revisit this discussion, as with the old Tube displays, some benefits some drawbacks... ).

? ? They asked for a PMR drive. That is what they were asking for. That is what they wished to purchase. I hope you never serve me at a restaurant. I would test every product before rolling out. Because I don't trust them or the products they release to perform as expected (note "expected", I still expect them to perform some way, just assume they will change their mind without noting it in a spec sheet). Their spec sheets are not reliable/avaliable. So I'd probably go to a competitor. What is your defence against them again? Unless you have access to some additional data, such as SMR total PMR cache zone size, or consistent throughput rate etc. AFAIK Samsung (and others) don't supply this for SSDs, but constant throughput rates can be seen in available benchmarks (theoretical example "450mpbs over 50gb till the 1 bit 4 bit cell cache is used up, then 350mbps after that" and/or "450mbps sustained on an empty drive or with overprovisioning, 350mbps when full disk"). We don't have those for these WD SMR drives because *we were not told they were SMR*. But we are told SSDs do/don't have cache (though some companies try to hide if it has a ram cache or not, but as said, disassembling it can find out!). For those who need certain performance/behaviour type, they can just buy/test/refund or buy/disassemble (to see what platters/cache chips are on the PCB for HDD/SSD) and post reviews (at a cost mind ) to test. So hiding the specs is pointless from a marketing/business practice and only hurts those customers if it's cheaper/more convenient/more reliable to go to their competitor. WD wins a large bulk low effort consumer space, but loses out to those who need the reliability/openness. Note, "openness" need not have a fault. These could be 1000% reliable, yet not being told, that is where people feel uneasy.

Nonononono. You don't get it, even if the HDD is made of jello, it's suppose to work exactly right for the NAS. It's a manufacturers fault in the firmwares nothing to do with jello being the wrong choice for a NAS drive. If Samsung brings out a new HDD that has no RAM cache, but uses a second mini super fast platter and magic super fast 18 read/write arms as a cache, it will perform exactly as a HDD with a RAM cache. However, if *only* Samsungs magic new HDD with super fast cache platters fail, it is *both* the new tech (magic super fast cache platters) *and* the fact it "fails as advertised". You're stating "the average is different" as we are stating "the specific data point is different!" Both are correct, both averages and specific data points are correct. Both the SMR in this drive [slows to a point the OS/NAS/RAID in some systems] fails and the drive fails [some expectation*] of spec. *Which might be fixable in software/OS/firmware as with the AMD CCX problems were, but if customers/OS/firmware writers are not told for the NAS servers, then how can they fix it?

They do. Modders/car nuts do. And these things are listed. Sorry. (Aus too, cos you guys are so great at you car stuff )

And. Did you read those posts in that forum? "I wish to keep to PMR drives" because they already had PMR drives. You are saying they don't have the right to make that decision to ask what type of drive it is and decide to buy/not/redesign their NAS/RAID/ZFS/failure redundancy on that? and not changing tech/design/spec = better knowledge of the hardware = (generally) less "new adoption" failures errors. This could be a normal firmware bug. But those *opting* to buy like for like to avoid new firmware bugs (mainly from new features) have the choice to chose. They don't if companies withould that info till it fails in use.

And at that. I'm out. You admit there is a performance penalty, but not mentioned by the manufacturers, but above you claim there is no difference ("prove it" then say "there is a penalty")! As said, Samsung QVO is quad cell SSD, vs their older 3 cell, and other companies have platters/arms/vibration/power capacitor power off safety/etc/etc and are open about it. Here they were not. That's as much as needs to be said. PS, thread from June last year, as an example of them *not* performing the same. Granted, they were not failing, but they were throwing errors, as the users were not expecting SMR, thus the latency was a problem (I assume/guess due to mixed disk performance, because *the consumer was not notified before purchasing*). https://www.ixsystems.com/community/threads/smr-resilver.77964/

They removed platter numbers. This is not correct. SMR will impact me in certain workloads. *Could be*. Could also not be. I can test this, and thus the argument is invalid. Yep. But I wish to make informed choices. WD not allowing me to, will mean I go else where (I can look up reviews, but it takes longer than checking a spec sheet with other companies). Hence why I went for a Samsung SSD over Cruicial, burnt once with a lemon there, not going back for a while. No. To the fact of hiding that they are using it. As a customer, I'm not giving them the choice to not tell me. If it is or if it isn't is inconsequential. The drives are failing. Currently the only difference seen is SMR. If it's the firmware/seek time and the NAS controller is failing, it's still a material change the consumer could not have accounted for *because they were not told*. Baseless? Baseless that I request a company tell me what they are doing or what they sell me? Fault or no fault, I ask for hands open deals, not closed fists (as a sign language expression would put it).

Not too bad, just picked up an 860 EVO for just over £100 (If it arrives and is legit ) and prices don't seem to have doubled yet. £/$20-40 difference between sales/supply and demand spikes kinda happens with PC hardware... but if it goes on, it may hit the... (sees $180/$200 at the end of the graph) oh... whoops!

? Company removes listings of specs for fear customers won't buy them. I care less what the other customers do. I don't like a company removing the spec, or starting to hide their practices. An example, theoretical. Phone companies stop listing battery MAH because it's misleading. A phone with a fast but power efficient chip (using better tech, say 4nm instead of 14nm) would last longer on a smaller battery, than a wasteful chip on a bigger battery... So they stop listing it. That's fine, right, we only care about "talk time" and "screen on time" and "standby time", and those are still listed? I might be ok with that. If they also drop those metrics, because dirty witch hinter consumers are stupid, I'm out and not buying it. Why? Because I'll not know if they swapped for smaller/worse parts mid release cycle (happens), and tries to swindle me/consumers. They might have a good reason for doing it. It will have unintended consequences though. Besides, *it's pointless* hiding specs from consumers, buyers can make their own list by buying, checking/disassembling/xraying products and (if nondestructive examination) returning. So, WD not listing something, makes me reluctant to buy their products. Just as I might not buy Samsung TVs as they don't list certain features/display tech, and (IIRC along with other companies) mix in tech and product lines, and you might get OLED/backlight/zones/etc different to the similar model that looks the same. Without seeing/using it in person to know I like it, and not seeing specs online, I would skip. PS, where did I blame SMR for making these drives fail in NAS boxes? It is a change though. SMR is not PMR.

I don't even think it requires a downside. Sometimes it does, other times it's just if the customer was mislead, or if the customer was not told, of certain specifics. See the AMD case, which they did list specs, but made marketing claims they could not back up (IIRC which was the only reason they lost/settled out of court for that one).

Nah. Me liking Toshiba and Samsung is historical, and if they follow suit, I won't buy those products (but do realise they are massive companies... so if Sony Music make DRM breaking cds, I may still buy Sony headphones , but won't buy Sony music/cds etc). I'll go back to a company if I can trust it. But really. I don't want the hassle, so I avoid those companies that give me hassle.

I never said I don't want SMR. Again... lol. I said companies not advertising specs/technology of the product may lose customers and is a poor move. I look up the Toshiba drives I get, I also don't use NAS yet. But I do try to find out if it's SMR/cache sizes/etc. If I find a Toshiba drive I don't like the reviews/spec to, I won't buy it. Same for the Samsung drives. But somehow, people not liking the WD drives is wrong of them... even if these drives are failing in NAS?

Then they lose me as a customer. That is the thing. Complain all you like about me being wrong. Or those customers being wrong. If there is no relationship with the seller, the buyer might walk. 'Customers might argue SMR should not be used in a NAS and it is the cause of the faults, they might be wrong' (To paraphrase) So? Two wrongs don't make a right. The consumers have a failing product and find out a material change in the design, a functional difference in the processing of it's performance or function, is different. That is wrong on the case of WD. As said, like with SSDs, if I had a Samsung EVO 860 xxxzzyA and an EVO 860 xxxzzyB and found out the Bs had no RAM cache, instead using extra/better designed FLASH cache, I'd be annoyed *if* those drives also failed/froze/hit bottlenecks at different times to the As. If I was told in the spec sheet "Cache, 32mb RAM A and 32mb FLASH B" I'd not care, I'd go in with knowledge of my purchase. Here in the UK, we have "chip shop condiment". It's vinegar flavour (chemically identical, but other source of acid), but not vinegar (grape/malt/cider sourced), thus they don't call it the same thing. Customers don't care, because they are not being wilfully deceived.

Nah. I'm saying those of us affected by this, care not what the media does. Yes the media is wrong. But that is not the people on this forum. Even if some on this forum are wrong, that is not all the people on this forum. We seem to have lost the care and empathy for individuals.

Wait. They get to withhold information on the product we are buying because they fear we may have misinformation? Do you realise what you are saying there? Plus, as said, we have a legal and social expectation that consumers (as said, note "consumers") are given the details of the sale/service/product. A company is not listing that, and reducing it's listings also! I never said I don't understand why. I said it's a poor move towards the customer. It might benefit WD massively. But so would them eating puppies/kittens (cheap meat, saves dollars in the canteen... not illegal, but still socially a poor move! ). PS, I now wonder how KFK would taste... isolation is really messing with my appitite! Great. Then why not note it on the spec sheet instead of pretending to customers just to boost a temp bottom line with marketing and sales but lose a lot of consumer trust in the process. I know the "why", more a question of why take the route... why put money and short term profit over actual honesty... like, I see people buying loo rolls. It's their choice. Still a dumb and poor choice. WD is the loo roll buying in the supermarket... legal (at the time), but we have words to express it. Still a poor move. But I could find those specs/white papers. Again, apples/oranges/unfair comparisons. Where did I say SMR was bad? I love this forum I really do. The law kinda trumps that when it comes to being honest to consumers. As said, here it's not against the law. But the arguments have absolutely nothing to do with the issues people raised. But get angry if you think I'm disagreeing with you. I'm not. Just it seems you are pointing out the cute puppies WD also makes, which has nothing to do with the arguments OP and the conflict they suggested between consumers and WD.

Yeah, I'm also not buying a "WD super gold" if it has SMR and I have a use case which need say SSDs... but WD saying "oh, customers might not buy our drives if they think they have platter tech, quick, don't mention if it's an SSD or platter... because it makes no differences!!!!"

Me? I have that control? Who said I'm refusing to buy them? I like the tech, I just want to make informed choices. Are you telling me I am not allowed to make informed choices? I refuse to buy WD because it's WD and I don't like their products or business practices currently. I sometimes do buy from them, if the product seems ok...

No. My "product" was a service. The kettle is an example of a product (one I sold, not manufactured). Customers want X, and if they are right or wrong, it is wrong of WD to pass of Y as it. Even if the customer is wrong, if they expected X, it's unfair. Entire industries get fined in courts for changing a market/industry towards consumers (note, consumers) if it's a change in *expected* service/product. Even if it's an upgrade, if it is not *notified* to the consumer. That's the difference. Telling the consumer.