WD's Big Advantage: BiCS3 64-Layer 3D NAND Coming This Year

[It's me!]

9 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

would be enough to run Seagate out of town. Density is already high enough that Samsung is beating everyone in raw storage size per drive (a 16TB 2.5" drive with the same thickness as a 3.5"). That's with 48-layer 40nm VNAND too, so it's not like HAMR is going to save Seagate's bacon with 20TB drives by 2020. Samsung could make a 25TB 3.5" drive right now if it wanted to.

 

Seagate will be on its way out by the end of the decade. Whether it's Micron, WD, Intel

The most funny part is that WD now has a failure rate that is 2X that of seagate in the backblaze reports, but no one even pays attention anymore! 

[patrickjp93]

1 hour ago, It's me! said:

The most funny part is that WD now has a failure rate that is 2X that of seagate in the backblaze reports, but no one even pays attention anymore! 

If you eliminate the green drives from that report, the table flips. Value drives are always garbage.

[Curufinwe_wins]

59 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

If you eliminate the green drives from that report, the table flips. Value drives are always garbage.

Well actually the Green Drives have a more complicated issue...

 

https://forums.freenas.org/index.php?threads/hacking-wd-greens-and-reds-with-wdidle3-exe.18171/

 

Quote

 

Check out the orange plastic pieces. This landing zone was (keyword "was".. I'll get back to this later) unique to WD Greens and a few other drives that are Green drives with a different name.


WD Green drives have cool stuff on the box that says things like:

 

 

-Cool & quiet computing.
-eco-conscious
-power saving
-great for desktop or workstation use*
*Desktop drives are not recommended for use in RAID environments, please consider using WD Red hard drives for home and small office 1-5 bay NAS systems and WD Enterprise hard drives for rackmount and >5 bay NAS systems.

Well, crap. This forum is all about servers. That asterisk really screws us over, doesn't it?

Well, yes and no. This is why this topic exists. WD Green drives will automatically park themselves after being idle for 8 seconds(the default). So if you do a disk read or write followed by at least 8 seconds of inactivity the heads will park. On the next read or write the head will unpark to perform the task. Next time the drive is idle for 8 seconds it will park again. So you can see that if you had a disk read or write every 10 seconds it could park and unpark itself frequently. To make problems even worse, that landing zone is only rated for 250,000 to 350,000cycles or so(depends on model and year of manufacture). Some people have recorded well over 800,000 cycles in less than a year! Normally for a desktop you'll do a lot of reading for a short period of time, followed by significant idle time. So getting to a large number of cycles for a desktop is quite difficult. But, on a server things are a bit different. If you start streaming a movie ZFS will read-ahead on the movie. It will probably be more than 8 seconds between reads. This means that the whole time you are watching a movie the drive will be parking and unparking itself. Some people have recorded more than 250k cycles in less than a year. Western Digital knows about all of this stuff, and there are stories of WD denying warranties on drives with excessive cycles because it's an indicator that you used the drive outside its "designed" criteria. Because of this claim they do not have to honor the warranty. Good luck trying to fight them on it too.

 

[Captain_WD]

15 hours ago, It's me! said:

~snip~

Hey guys

 

Here's our official Press Release.  

 

Here are a couple of quotes from it:

"Western Digital expects meaningful commercial volumes of BiCS3 in the first half of calendar 2017. "

"Western Digital expects volume shipments of BiCS3 for the retail market in the fourth calendar quarter of 2016 and to begin OEM sampling this quarter."

 

Let me know if I can be of help

 

Thanks @Sauron for mentioning

 

Captain_WD.

[79wjd]

6 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

If you eliminate the green drives from that report, the table flips. Value drives are always garbage.

And Seagate doesn't have value drives.....right? 

 

And of course, I'm sure you have a source of the blackblaze report without value drives included. Mind sharing it with the rest of us

[patrickjp93]

33 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

And Seagate doesn't have value drives.....right? 

 

And of course, I'm sure you have a source of the blackblaze report without value drives included. Mind sharing it with the rest of us

Seagate's problem is its drives are consistently bad. And it's really easy. The report contains both the dissected/raw and collated data.