TechyBen

Technically it's its own model number(fax), but I know what you mean something like red smr.
This out lash towards smr reminds me of Ford using its 4 cylinder eco boost instead of its normal v6 in the f150 (and I think mustang), it'll die down people who need cmr will keep to them, those using nas drives for typical use (video storage, large file storage) will buy smr and likely not see a difference

I am not against SMR.
I think - as said before - if there is a use case for it with enough demand, that technology will survive.
HDDs are not going anywhere!
 
However, I am against manufacturers decreasing significantly the performance of a product, without letting the consumer know.
It is important to highlight that these HDD remained on the same family of products, without a change in labelling, marketing name, or even specification sheets.
 
This is not transparent, and consumer will be mislead by previous tests, reviews, and experiences.

No one from consumers looks at the version numbers. Not to a point it would seriously matter. We just generally look at series, like "WD Black" or "WD Red". And if there are some notable differences they should be openly disclosed. For example, when I was initially looking at WD UltraStar drives, they stated rather obviously which are classic drives and which are helium filled with HelioSeal designation. But they are all called UltraStar as whole.
 
I then picked a cheaper 5400RPM Barracuda 8TB because I had doubts that UltraStar HelioSeal drives are as quiet as specs said at 7200RPM, despite helium. Silence was my top priority. I think I found out it's SMR from Geizhals itself since I was looking for them there, because Seagate page didn't mention it at all. But it didn't bother me and I was fine with it because the drive is meant for hoarding. It's still fast enough and used as individual drive doing reads mostly. I was educated because I was buying new HDD after some 10 years and figured things have changed a lot and I was also specifically looking for quietest HDD so I had to dig through spec sheets of all of them and didn't care in the end. Who expected them to silently swap recording method within same series without mentioning it? Of course you just buy same series without going into details.
 
They could just come forth with the info about it on their webpage and also give a headsup to few major tech sites and info would spread like wildfire. Sure some small % would take it negatively, but most would probably accept it as good gesture of being honest and warning people that change has been done and that you have to pay attention to version number in this very specific case. It would literally cost them nothing to send such "article" to tech sites and some small cost for updating the webpage. They've opted not to and now it's the real PR nightmare going on. Where all this could rather easily be avoided. Saying they just didn't know something like this would happen is just BS. They live from designing, manufacturing and selling HDD's. That would be like saying Volkswagen doesn't know how internal combustion engine works. They damn well knew what they were doing.

Nope. IMO intentional misinformation. "These new drives *won't* sell because they are carp in a tin sandwiches with mud in them... quick, forget to update the spec sheets! Problem solved".
 
I've been in meetings where vital information was not added... not because they were especially worried customers would make the "wrong" decisions, but that they would make the right ones. (Samsung was the funniest to do this, Hotpoint [Wirlpool] Were a little less funny... just more tragic).
 
Your totally missing the point. Example
Customer "The *red* paint is toxic... argh...
You: "The commonality of the colour was never a problem, you don't know that the colour is the cause of the toxicity, it might be a bad batch or a new formular..."
Customer: Point is it's toxic, and they never told me!!!
 
That's the point. If the cache, controller chip, or SMR is the cause, it does not matter. It's a material change not noted in the spec sheet.
 
I've attempted a repair on a case to a HP laptop, and had to send the parts back, because although all part numbers matches, and were externally identical, they change the positions/design internally. Why? Well, the hinges always broke (hence me needing to repair it!) and half way through an existing model run, they updated the design, but none of the model numbers (externally anyhow, a couple of internal stickers were different). Thing is, the *spec* was identical, and use case, just the physical reliability increased.
 
Here, the actual performance and drive behaviour is different. And not listed!

That would require thinking, something I wonder if Seagate can even do. 
 
Also look at the rn number of the new smr drives, Google that and tell me where in the spec sheets state the platter tech. It's the same for all drives. 

You are just contradicting yourself right there...
 
Same name, same price, hidden change to "inferior" technology and thus degraded performance -> intentional misleading. There is no excuse for this despicable tactic.

It wasnt done before because there was only CMR, now that there is SMR its time to update spec sheets because these two technology has some huge differences. Right now what WD does is intentional misleading for financial gains.

If you have a failed disk and you buy a replacement and that replacement cannot be added to the array because the rebuild always fails I think that is a bit more than a storm in a teacup. You have a NAS, you brought a NAS disk, the disk won't work in your NAS, seems to tick all the boxes to be able to complain about it.

SMR and PMR have nothing to do with low level formatting. How sectors and tracks are magnetically written to the platter is not related to the low level formatting of the sectors. How something is written and how something is organized are different things. Tracks and sectors are a logical representation not a physical.
 
No it can, that's just an assumption. For one pure SMR disks have already been used in NAS applications, what we have today are not pure SMR anyway.
 
If you have a 20TB HDD with 2TB of PMR zone and 512MB cache and your workload suites this configuration there is no reason a disk such as this cannot be a NAS disk. NAS disks are not rated because they are high performance, most NAS disks are in fact lower performance tiers. NAS disks are NAS disks because they have optimized firmware for it and vibration compensation, being PMR is completely unrelated to a disks ability and suitability to be used in a NAS application.
 
Your performance demands and configuration of your NAS might not suit these SMR enabled disks or any SMR disk, or it may not. Declaring SMR, any usage of it, makes it unsuitable for NAS usage is fairly short sighted.

An odd bug found

Yeah, GN is definitely better, especially now with their cooler tests. Their in-depth testing is actually pretty great on all sides. Can't wait for them to get into power supply testing.

cus GN is better than LTT at detailed testing

more performance in "5 popular titles"
 
those titles being CSGO, fortnite, pubg, overwatch, and GTA V. All games cherry picked to benefit intel. On top of that:

The only tangible difference is in CSGO. otherwise, performance is within testing error basically (not that testing error means anything on this site, since there's no controlling for variables.)

Since we've already seen how Intel's 8 core are slower than AMD's 8 core when limited to the same power target (cuz laptop, can't just slap a huge cooler onto it), that means Intel CPUs cant even be paired with anything that says RTX on laptops without CPU bottleneck then. Thx userbenchmark

this is mostly about their writings below processors making 0 sense. a 3700X doesn't bottleneck a 2070 super in any normal configuration but they claim it does.
a 4800H/HS shouldn't be used with anything faster than a 2060 as it has to much latency

Im not worried about it, i know it will. Only question is when it will happen. As for your trust issues i have an old 200 GB WD that still didnt kicked the bucket. It got its fair share of wear and tear being my main drive for several years(OS and everything). It got 5 bad sectors in the first 2 years but ever since then it runs flawlessly.  So far i didnt had any HDD failures. (Currently i have 20+ HDDs.)

I loked prices up, samsung 860 evo 2TB - 111990 HUF vs Ironwolf  10 TB - 110790 HUF

So, the first is true, but 1TB SSD also = 2 1TB HDDs, and most 10TB HDDs (only exception I know of atm is shucking an external one) are noticeably more expensive than 2 TB SSDs, the 8TB models tends to be more commonly in the same price range.
 
But either way, cold storage shouldn't generally be SSDs anyways due to information leak at extended times without power. And either way, SSDs are still more expensive.
 
The way I personally think about it is that smaller than 5TB total hot storage it makes sense to go all SSD, and above that, SSD primary plus HDD-based NAS makes the most sense. I personally have 3TB of SSD attached with 12 (9 usable) TB HDD sitting in a NAS.

In terms of price:
1TB SSD = 4 TB HDD
2TB SSD = 10 TB HDD
 
So yeah, hell no.

Eh, I suppose it depends on POV. At the end of the day, yes the RAID controller drops the drive and moves on so as to not hold up the volume. But it's not because it was a proactive measure insomuch as a system level event reporting a SATA device dropped offline (like a drive's controller locking up)
 
I've never written RAID drivers or firmware, so I could't tell you how verbose / granular the logging can be. I could only recall the logging information available to me at the time and it was more limited than I prefer. 
 
During a TLER event, I'd expect those to be logged even if the SATA channel is reported to still be occupied. Even if that means the RAID controller taking proactive measure to drop the drive from the array while the SATA channel is left in a connected state.
 

Slow cheap mass storage is sata ssd's. Spinning rust may as well be tape at this point. If i'm a large company doing archival, fine. Otherwise, no

This is long term reliability data that's great for enterprise but only part of the picture, the short term performance data is still missing from the datasheets.
When the only performance spec is "Data Transfer Rate Up To X" and is the same over an entire line of drives how can I know that drive 1 will be able to take my 100GB of video footage at 200MB/s and drive 2 only at 100, for example becasue it's an SMR drive?
 
As a private and small business customer that's pretty much the only thing I care about. I don't even care much about reliability, I have dual backups so if a drive fails tomorrow or in 2 years doesn't matter much, what I need to know is how it performs for the job I'm doing today, and it's impossible to get that information from the manufacturer.
 
I really hope one day drive manufacturers start catering to the spec needs of everyone, not just enterprise. Having reliability data is great, but performance is just as important and is never quoted. Yet they do it for SSDs so it's not about "but we can't becasue it's workload dependent".

A year is short, and it's basically what people are finding out now. Until then it was not really a thing apart from specifically labeled archival drives.
 
Again SMR was always pointed out as being either a cost saving measure or a way to get more capacity. A 2TB 3.5" drive doesn't need SMR for capacity, and from what I can see the SMR variants aren't really cheaper than the CMR variant at retail. So people get less and it's normal they're frustrated.
 
In the past 10 years 5400 has been the standard for desktop drives. I remember the pain trying to get 7200rpm ones a few years ago, almost impossible to find any. Only the WD blacks and nobody carried them. 

Processors change series (or generation).
This way, you have a way to tell the difference.
 
HDD have families, but not generations.
This is wrong doing.
 
Not exactly.
The perfomrnace - which they advertise - decreased significanlty.
Thus, this is not acceptable.