Review WD Red Plus 12TB HDD Review: Seeing Red

bit_user

Titan
Ambassador
it doesn’t have the OptiNand technology of the Red Pro
Be aware that data recovery is probably impossible on OptiNAND drives, should anything happen to the OptiNAND chip.

Because NAND uses charge storage, it's conceivable the bits on the platters will outlast those in the OptiNAND chips. I wouldn't trust them to last too long after the warranty period.
 
Last edited:

LaminarFlow

Distinguished
Jun 28, 2016
19
17
18,515
Sure this is not the fastest drive, but honestly for 90% of the home/small office NAS applications, you are limited by network bandwidth. All modern drives will cap off the 1GbE on most situations, and 2.5GbE cost significantly more to setup. Heck, it's not even available as a standard feature on most Synology entry level NAS.

I take quieter/cooler drives at 5400/5800 rpm any day over 7200 ones. Too bad they don't offer it anymore with 10TB+ capacity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: klockwerk

bit_user

Titan
Ambassador
Sure this is not the fastest drive, but honestly for 90% of the home/small office NAS applications, you are limited by network bandwidth.
It's worth considering RAID rebuild times. I don't like it when they take longer than 24h.

Honestly, I find it a little weird that it's not more economical for them to use fewer, higher-capacity platters, which is what ultimately determines peak sequential transfer speeds.
 

bit_user

Titan
Ambassador
Still too expensive at $16.70/TB. NAND is almost down to $30. Tick Tock spinning rust.
  1. Where can you get 12 TB of SSDs for $360
  2. Is that storage you'd really entrust your data to?

The problem is that you're not proposing a realistic alternative. You're just finding the cheapest SSD you can and extrapolating it as if it's a comparable option. It would be like me taking a 18 TB drive costing $250 and saying that HDD storage is $13.89/TB. It only applies to that specific drive. Presenting it as a ratio incorrectly implies that you could get a 2 TB HDD for $27.78, which I assure you that you cannot.

Instead of narrowly focusing on cost, it's better to focus on where HDDs make the most sense:
  • Large-capacity storage
  • Offline data retention, where the cheap QLC SSDs you keep quoting are especially bad.

For everything else, go ahead and use SSDs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: klockwerk

sabicao

Distinguished
Nov 12, 2010
8
10
18,515
Non-recoverable errors per bits read: 1 in each 10^14 - thanks, but no, thanks!
Not while you have WD Gold or Seagate IronWolf Pro not that much more expensive to choose from.
 

lmcnabney

Prominent
Aug 5, 2022
192
190
760
The problem is that you're not proposing a realistic alternative.
The problem is that there are only three manufacturers of HDD and they have decided not to compete with each other. Prices have been dropping steadily (price per MB/GB/TB) since they were invented decades ago until three years ago. Since 2020 the price for the exact same type of drive and capacity has been rock solid and newer/larger drives just have higher prices. Kind of like GPUs.
Data centers are already gearing up to make the move to NAND. HDD may still cost 50-60% less, but they take up more room, consume more power, and perhaps most importantly, they produce more heat. They are also an order of magnitude slower in performance. The net costs are approaching parity. By keeping HDD prices higher instead of dropping to maintain a strong value position the industry is dooming itself. It is maintaining some profit margin now despite a huge drop in units sold.
We are already seeing the endgame. 4+ TB NAND devices have been plummetting in price and entering the full consumer market. They have even gotten under $200 for 4TB. This makes sense. Adding more storage, especially in the 2.5" size format, just scales with the price of NAND chips. When manufacturing at scale it is cheaper to make a 20TB 2.5" SATA drive than 20 1TB NVME drives that sell for under $40 each. Once higher capacity SSDs leave their specialty niche and go after consumers the HDD market is done. The industry's solution to this is to keep a strong price advantage over NAND, but they just don't want to do it.
 

bit_user

Titan
Ambassador
The problem is that there are only three manufacturers of HDD and they have decided not to compete with each other. Prices have been dropping steadily (price per MB/GB/TB) since they were invented decades ago until three years ago. Since 2020 the price for the exact same type of drive and capacity has been rock solid and newer/larger drives just have higher prices.
There are other explanations than them "deciding not to compete with each other". Have you read about HAMR drives? The reason they're doing that is conventional recording densities have basically hit a wall.

The way HDDs get cheaper is by increasing density, so they can either offer the same capacity using fewer platters or offer more capacity with the same number of platters. It's not by magic. There's no natural law of physics that says everything technological must get cheaper with time. Just look at automobiles: they've pretty consistently gotten more expensive, even though they're based on technology and there's been pretty vibrant competition in that industry.

So, if conventional platter densities stopped increasing and HAMR adds cost and is slow to ramp up, then the natural expectation should be a plateauing of prices!

Data centers are already gearing up to make the move to NAND. HDD may still cost 50-60% less, but they take up more room, consume more power, and perhaps most importantly, they produce more heat.
Did you ever look at the idle & active power specs for a datacenter SSDs, or are you just assuming they match the consumer SSDs you're familiar with?

They are also an order of magnitude slower in performance.
There are lots of cases where performance doesn't matter so much. Backups and near-line storage, for example. Most of the data in "the cloud" is just sitting there, so you don't need to put it on the highest-performance devices.

The net costs are approaching parity.
You're focusing too much on the current market correction in SSDs as representing a trend. It certainly won't continue apace.

By keeping HDD prices higher instead of dropping to maintain a strong value position the industry is dooming itself. It is maintaining some profit margin now despite a huge drop in units sold.
So, if you divide these supposed profits by the volume of HDDs sold, how much do you estimate they could shave off the cost of each drive?

We are already seeing the endgame. 4+ TB NAND devices have been plummetting in price and entering the full consumer market. They have even gotten under $200 for 4TB. This makes sense. Adding more storage, especially in the 2.5" size format, just scales with the price of NAND chips. When manufacturing at scale it is cheaper to make a 20TB 2.5" SATA drive than 20 1TB NVME drives that sell for under $40 each.
Controllers have a limited number of channels, so now you need either more controllers or bigger ones. Adding NAND chips also increases power consumption. Finally, adding more components results in greater chance of failure, which means you need to add some redundancy. Yes, it does scale, but it's not linear.

The best way to scale is to get higher-density NAND chips. Those will come, but at a higher price (though still more cost-effective than today).

At some point, the cost of adding additional NAND cells via denser process nodes or stacking more 3D layers will increase so much that the cost per bit will no longer decrease. I don't know when it will happen, but it inevitably will. At that point, I guess you'll blame "lack of competition" for prices ceasing to fall.

Once higher capacity SSDs leave their specialty niche and go after consumers the HDD market is done.
The lowest cost per GB is the consumer market. Try taking a look at datacenter SSD prices, some time.

The industry's solution to this is to keep a strong price advantage over NAND, but they just don't want to do it.
No, the industry's solution is to have a foot in both markets. All the big HDD makers also sell SSDs. They compete where there's money to be made. But, they're obviously not going to operate at zero profit or a loss, if they can possibly help it.

Right now, the state of the NAND industry is dire, which is why it's misleading to read too much into current pricing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: klockwerk
As I am tired of tinkering with a mixture of external USB connected drives (500 GB x 3, 2 TB, 3 TB) and a few 2.5" 500 GB models, I have since order a pair of these Red + 12 TB, to be run internally in a Win10 Storage Space mirror... (Anything semi-important like photos, etc., will also be backed up to aforementioned external drives and to one (or more) of a myriad of free cloud accounts. (If anyone has not seen TeraBox yet, they offer a 1 TB free account...!)