WD Red 3 TB NAS Hard Drive: 3.5 Inch, SATA III, 64 MB Cache – WD30EFRX

WD Red 3 TB NAS Hard Drive: 3.5 Inch, SATA III, 64 MB Cache – WD30EFRX

  • Capacity: 3 TB
  • Rotational Speed (RPM): IntelliPower
  • Cache: 64 MB
  • Interface: SATA3
  • Data Transfer Rate: 6 Gb/s Buffer to Host (max); 145 MB/s Host to/from drive (typical)
  • Form Factor: 3.5 inch
  • Read/Write: 4.4 Watts
  • Standby: 0.6 Watt

Western Digital Red WD30EFRX 3TB SATA3 IntelliPower 64MB Hard Drive (3.5 inch)

List Price: $ 199.99

Price:

This entry was posted in Kingston Valueram 2 Gb 1333mhz Pc3 10600 Ddr3 Dimm Desktop Memory Kvr1333d3n92g and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to WD Red 3 TB NAS Hard Drive: 3.5 Inch, SATA III, 64 MB Cache – WD30EFRX

  1. Gary E. Peterson says:
    384 of 421 people found the following review helpful
    5.0 out of 5 stars
    Regular consumer drives in RAID are accident waiting to happen, August 20, 2012
    By 
    Gary E. Peterson (Minnesota USA) –
    (REAL NAME)
      

    Amazon Verified Purchase(http://www.amazon.com/gp/community-help/amazon-verified-purchase/177-9503875-5436566', ‘AmazonHelp’, ‘width=400,height=500,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,toolbar=0,status=1′);return false; “>What’s this?)
    This review is from: WD Red 3 TB NAS Hard Drive: 3.5 Inch, SATA III, 64 MB Cache – WD30EFRX (Personal Computers)

    Here is a quote from a review at pcper.com

    I’m going to let the cat out of the bag right here and now. Everyone’s home RAID is likely an accident waiting to happen. If you’re using regular consumer drives in a large array, there are some very simple (and likely) scenarios that can cause it to completely fail. I’m guilty of operating under this same false hope – I have an 8-drive array of 3TB WD Caviar Greens in a RAID-5. For those uninitiated, RAID-5 is where one drive worth of capacity is volunteered for use as parity data, which is distributed amongst all drives in the array. This trick allows for no data loss in the case where a single drive fails. The RAID controller can simply figure out the missing data by running the extra parity through the same formula that created it. This is called redundancy, but I propose that it’s not.

    Since I’m also guilty here with my huge array of Caviar Greens, let me also say that every few weeks I have a batch job that reads *all* data from that array. Why on earth would I need to occasionally and repeatedly read 21TB of data from something that should already be super reliable? Here’s the failure scenario for what might happen to me if I didn’t:
    * Array starts off operating as normal, but drive 3 has a bad sector that cropped up a few months back. This has gone unnoticed because the bad sector was part of a rarely accessed file.
    * During operation, drive 1 encounters a new bad sector.
    * Since drive 1 is a consumer drive it goes into a retry loop, repeatedly attempting to read and correct the bad sector.
    * The RAID controller exceeds its timeout threshold waiting on drive 1 and marks it offline.
    * Array is now in degraded status with drive 1 marked as failed.
    * User replaces drive 1. RAID controller initiates rebuild using parity data from the other drives.
    * During rebuild, RAID controller encounters the bad sector on drive 3.
    * Since drive 3 is a consumer drive it goes into a retry loop, repeatedly attempting to read and correct the bad sector.
    * The RAID controller exceeds its timeout threshold waiting on drive 3 and marks it offline.
    * Rebuild fails.

    At this point the way forward varies from controller to controller, but the long and short of it is that the data is at extreme risk of loss. There are ways to get it all back (most likely without that one bad sector on drive 3), but none of them are particularly easy. Now you may be asking yourself how enterprises run huge RAIDs and don’t see this sort of problem? The answer is Time Limited Error Recovery – where the hard drive assumes it is part of an array, assumes there is redundancy, and is not afraid to quickly tell the host controller that it just can’t complete the current I/O request.

    Here’s how that scenario would have played out if the drives implemented some form of TLER:
    * Array starts off operating as normal, but drive 3 has developed a bad sector several weeks ago. This went unnoticed because the bad sector was part of a rarely accessed file.
    * During operation, drive 1 encounters a new bad sector.
    * Drive 1 makes a few read attempts and then reports a CRC error to the RAID controller.
    * The RAID controller maps out the bad sector, locating it elsewhere on the drive. The missing sector is rebuilt using parity data from the other drives in the array.
    *Array continues normal operation, with the error added to its event log.

    The above scenario is what would play out with an Areca RAID controller (I’ve verified this personally). Other controllers may behave differently. A controller unable to do a bad sector remap might have just marked drive 1 as bad, but the key is that the rebuild would be much less likely to fail as drive 3 would not drop completely offline once the controller ran into the additional bad sector. The moral of this story is that typical consumer grade drives have data error timeouts that are far longer than the drive offline timeout of typical RAID controllers, and without some form of TLER, two bad sectors (totaling 1024 bytes) is all that’s required to put multiple terabytes of data in grave danger.

    The Solution:
    The solution should be simple – just get some drives with TLER. The problem is that until now those were prohibitively expensive. Enterprise drives have all sorts of added features like accelerometers and pressure sensors to compensate for sliding in and out of a server rack while operating, as well as dealing with rapid pressure changes that take place when the server room door opens and the forced air circulation takes a quick detour. Those features just aren’t needed in that home NAS sitting on your bookshelf. What *is* needed is a WD Caviar Green that has TLER, and Western Digital delivers that in their new Red drives.

    End quote and back to reviewer.
    I’ve got 5 of these in a…

    Read more

    Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 

    Was this review helpful to you? Yes
    No

  2. Simon says:
    67 of 72 people found the following review helpful
    5.0 out of 5 stars
    NAS Best Friend, August 18, 2012
    By 
    Simon (MN, USA) –
    Amazon Verified Purchase(http://www.amazon.com/gp/community-help/amazon-verified-purchase/177-9503875-5436566', ‘AmazonHelp’, ‘width=400,height=500,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,toolbar=0,status=1′);return false; “>What’s this?)

    After about six months of searching for the perfect drive, I finally settled on two of these Western Digital Red 2TB WD20EFRX hard drives. I was ready to purchase HGST enterprise drives, the former Hitachi, but WD came out with these drives just in-time. I wanted to get the 3TB WD30EFRX version for my Synology DS212 NAS, but the price difference didn’t make that much of a sense, and 2TB drives are more than enough for a few years of my home office use. I am very happy that these drives MTBFs are rated at 1,000,000 hours, they use less power, and they are cheaper than other enterprise drives.

    Upon receiving, I immediately installed them in my NAS. It took about 15 minutes to install DSM 4 and begin the inspection process. I neither chose Raid 1, JBOD, or SHR, and I took some online advice and created two separate volumes, one on each disk, to have two independent file systems. In this case, you don’t have to worry about rebuilding disk arrays if any drives fail, and you always have a backup present. I was planning on using Folder Sync feature to sync all folders from Disk 1 to Disk 2 every other hour, but I found out this feature only works on two independent Synology Disk Stations; however, you can use automated backup feature to backup data from Disk 1 into Disk 2, and it produces about the same result as Folder Sync does, and it gives you a few more options for backing up system and application files as well.

    Synology volume creation took about 7 hours for each drive with automatic bad sector reallocation feature. I later tested each drive with S.M.A.R.T extended test–each took about 4 hours–and I am happy to report that I did not have any bad sectors on either of the drives. That is, the “Reallocated Sector Count” reads zero in S.M.A.R.T report.

    The drives are surprisingly quiet. I had an enterprise RE2 500GB in my NAS, and it was thunderstorm loud compared to these. The temperature is also very reasonable. When the drive is resting it is about 31C/88F, and under heavy usage it rises up to 35C/95F. Although these drives speed are only 5000 rpm, I don’t see any difference in file transfer speed. The only downside that I could sense was the startup time from sleep. I feel that compared to my old WD RE2 drive, it takes a good 2 to 5 seconds more for the NAS to come out of sleep each time. Not a deal breaker, but something to consider when you invest in these drives.

    I think WD has done a good job with these drives, and they are currently the best on the market for home or home office use. That being said, I still think WD RE4 drives are the best enterprise drives and ultimate in performance; however, if you are looking for a good set of drives for your NAS, and the power consumption and noise are important to you, these WD Red drives will work just fine. Compared to desktop drives, these come with a few enterprise features that come in handy and will save you some time and money down the road.

    Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 

    Was this review helpful to you? Yes
    No

  3. Diablo "The Lord of Terror" says:
    33 of 39 people found the following review helpful
    5.0 out of 5 stars
    Excellent NAS drives, July 26, 2012

    I purchased two of these for my Synology DiskStation 2-Bay (Diskless) Network Attached Storage DS212j (White) and I couldn’t be more pleased! (Sorry, Amazon–I got mine from that Egg vendor up the road…since they had a combo deal and free ship going) Upon installation, it took 7 minutes to set these two drives up in SHR. (Synology’s “enhanced” RAID1 configuration)

    WD brands these as “NAS Drives” with “NAS Ware”, and they’re pretty vague in their descriptions of what that actually means. However, after using these, I’ll just take their word for it. They appear to have the power consumption of Western Digital Caviar Green 2 TB Desktop Hard Drive WD20EARX, but have access and write speeds closer to Western Digital Caviar Black 2 TB SATA III 7200 RPM 64 MB Cache Bulk/OEM Internal Desktop Hard Drive – WD2002FAEX. I don’t have any first hand comparisons, but I’ve read of several users setting up their same NAS units with other drives and experiencing LONG configuration times (re: several hours.) Comparing their experiences to mine (7 minutes!) I’m inclined to say “it’s the drives man!!” But, again, without comparing other drives directly, it may or may not be.

    Bottom line: if you are looking for drives for your NAS, I’ve found these to be excellent!

    Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 

    Was this review helpful to you? Yes
    No