WD red or black?

[CommanderStrax]

I am looking at buying 2 HDDs that will be used to hold multiple operating systems for the next 6 months and then used as storage in a NAS. The intention is to use them to practice for the practical element of my IT course (configuring servers and clients, sharing files etc) and once the course is over, removing the OS's and installing the drives in a NAS.

My question is would WD red or black drives be best for this. I am leaning toward the red drives as they would only be holding OS's for a relatively short time, and you get more capacity per dollar than a black drive.

If it makes any difference, one drive will be installed in my desktop, and the other connected to my laptop via a USB 3 docking station (I don't have an eSATA port).

 

[stickmansam]

RED drives are better for raid if you ever mess around with that and that will be good for a NAS, they are also cooler

Have you considered the wd blue's or the Seagate 7200.14 drives? They offer even better price/gb and the Seagates are good in raid, have good reliability (don't confuse with the 7200.10/11/12) and are pretty cool and are only matched by the blue's in speed (the blacks are slower than the blues and seagate)

 

[aramisathei]

RED drives are better for raid if you ever mess around with that and that will be good for a NAS, they are also cooler

Have you considered the wd blue's or the Seagate 7200.14 drives? They offer even better price/gb and the Seagates are good in raid, have good reliability (don't confuse with the 7200.10/11/12) and are pretty cool and are only matched by the blue's in speed (the blacks are slower than the blues and seagate)

This is backward.
The blacks run at 7200rpm with a higher cache than the blues; the blacks are quite a bit faster.

 

[stickmansam]

The blues also have 64mb cache and run at 7200rpm
The only thing the blacks offer more is higher capacities (blues top out at 1tb) and a longer warranty which implies higher quality parts but not necessary faster

Review of the 7200.14 2tb, it beats or is a close match to the black in most tests

http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/2997/seagate-barracuda-720014-2tb-hard-disk-review-extremely-fast-7200-rpm-hard-drive
Not the most reliable source
http://www.tomshardware.com/us/sponsored/Seagate-Barracuda-Desktop-HDD-194_7

 

[jasonjrf]

The Blues are absolutely not faster than the Blacks. The blues do have less cache then the blacks and are a bit slower at least with transfers. Blacks are faster and generally more reliable. I only use blacks and a lot of my customers either have Blacks or blues. When transfering data across a Gb network Blues get about 45 Mbps while Blacks get 50 to 65.

 

[Hawkeye22]

^+1

WD blacks are definately better than the WD blues.

 

[smitbret]

Depending on your NAS setup, Blacks may be about the worst choice you can make. If there's any chance those drives will end up in hardware RAID then go with the RED, otherwise make sure you have a great backup plan in place because Black+RAID=Data Loss.

 

[ElFerrnie]

In regards to the RAID situation, it looks like everyone agrees that WD Reds would be the best buy for this. But why is that? What makes the Reds better than the Blacks in a RAID set up? Other than the WD website telling us that Reds are for RAID/NAS. The comment that stands out is "Black+RAID=Data Loss" and why is this true and not for the Reds. I'm just trying to get some more details on these drives other than Reds>Black or Blacks>Reds, but thanks everyone for all the information so far.

 

[randomstar]

The difference has to do with the way the RED and BLACK / others / RE drives handle errors, for the most part. there are a good number of reviews here on Tom's Hardware that would do a much better job of explaining. to be honest, the usage you detail almost warrant betting two sets of drives.. but if I had to pick one, REDS it is.

 

[erichudson]

WD read is for NAS, while black has better performance. check out this pdf
http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/Flyer/ENG/2278-771046.pdf

 

[Nathan71]

hmm black+NAS=data loss, good to see the ED marketing team have sold you on a far inferior drive with the reds. Reds are simply a modified controller running with slow discs. I have 10 blacks in a synology nas box running two years (24x7) , no issues or data loss what so ever.

 

[Dona487]

I choose WD black.

 

[puriskiri]

hmm black+NAS=data loss, good to see the ED marketing team have sold you on a far inferior drive with the reds. Reds are simply a modified controller running with slow discs. I have 10 blacks in a synology nas box running two years (24x7) , no issues or data loss what so ever.

Hi everyone! , Nathan71 I found your answer the most useful. I have two blacks and I want to build a FreeNas server in an older PC that I have. Please tell me if you have suggestions of RAID or another things that I need to pay attention.

Thank you very much!!

 

[silkman9]

WD reds are crap. Did you know that all reds are 5200 rpm? Of course you didn't because WD marketing forgot to tell you. They say intelipower rpm but its 5200. I saw now that they have red pro with 7200 rpm. The pro is without "intelipower". looool

I have used blacks in a raid for 6 years with no problems. From time to time I have disconnected cables by chance and the raid has been solid.

The only (possible) difference for raid is TLER. This is a setting where the raid-marketed drives have a longer time to disconnect from the array in case of a problem (which by then you are screwed anyhow).
There is a utility in the internet to change this in ANY wd drive.

EDIT: lol read this from the reds specs from wd website:
"4. A fine-tuned balance of spin speed, transfer rate and caching algorithms designed to deliver both significant power savings and solid performance. For each drive model, WD may use a different, invariable RPM."

I love marketing.

 

[Hawkeye22]

WD reds are crap. Did you know that all reds are 5200 rpm? Of course you didn't because WD marketing forgot to tell you. They say intelipower rpm but its 5200. I saw now that they have red pro with 7200 rpm. The pro is without "intelipower". looool

I have used blacks in a raid for 6 years with no problems. From time to time I have disconnected cables by chance and the raid has been solid.

The only (possible) difference for raid is TLER. This is a setting where the raid-marketed drives have a longer time to disconnect from the array in case of a problem (which by then you are screwed anyhow).
There is a utility in the internet to change this in ANY wd drive.

EDIT: lol read this from the reds specs from wd website:
"4. A fine-tuned balance of spin speed, transfer rate and caching algorithms designed to deliver both significant power savings and solid performance. For each drive model, WD may use a different, invariable RPM."

I love marketing.

Just because WD Red drives aren't 7200rpm doesn't mean they are crap. They serve their intended purpose. Now if there were data supporting a high failure rate or something, then they would be crap.

 

[smitbret]

WD reds are crap. Did you know that all reds are 5200 rpm? Of course you didn't because WD marketing forgot to tell you. They say intelipower rpm but its 5200. I saw now that they have red pro with 7200 rpm. The pro is without "intelipower". looool

I have used blacks in a raid for 6 years with no problems. From time to time I have disconnected cables by chance and the raid has been solid.

The only (possible) difference for raid is TLER. This is a setting where the raid-marketed drives have a longer time to disconnect from the array in case of a problem (which by then you are screwed anyhow).
There is a utility in the internet to change this in ANY wd drive.

EDIT: lol read this from the reds specs from wd website:
"4. A fine-tuned balance of spin speed, transfer rate and caching algorithms designed to deliver both significant power savings and solid performance. For each drive model, WD may use a different, invariable RPM."

I love marketing.

Just because WD Red drives aren't 7200rpm doesn't mean they are crap. They serve their intended purpose. Now if there were data supporting a high failure rate or something, then they would be crap.

http://techreport.com/news/27101/latest-backblaze-reliability-update-shows-rising-failure-rates-for-some-hard-drives