1TB WD Red Plus NAS Internal Hard Drive HDD - 5400 RPM, SATA 6 Gb/s, CMR, 64 MB Cache, 3.5" - WD10EFRX

The WD 1TB WDBMMA0010HNC-NRSN drive kit fully met my expectations. I bought this drive to make a RAID1 pair. The drive performed well in my home-built FreeNAS server and provided better network storage performance than expected without any glitches or issues. When compared with 750GB WD Black drives in the same server the RED drives appeared to give slightly better perforance in NAS. Maybe the NAS specific firmware isn't just marketing. For more, read on... I wanted to build a NAS server for windows sharing, iSCSI, and nfs sharing. I had an old 1U "pizza box" server with a core 2 dual CPU and 4GB of ram available plus SATA II (300MBPS) channels. I got one of the WDBMMA0010HNC-NRSN WD-red drives through the vine programs and I bought a second through Amazon to build this NAS server. This drive is the retail package. It came in a nice box with 4 screws for mounting and a little bit of very fine printed material which I didn't bother to read. If a "bare drive" is fine and you don't care about packaging you might want to consider another listing for the 1TB WD Red drives which may be at a lower price for essentially the same thing. The software I used to drive the NAS is the excellent (especially at the price) FreeNAS server. It installs on a USB stick of at least 2GB. My old box had several USB 2.1 ports, so no problem. I configured the drives in a RAID 1 mirrored array using software RAID (instead of the FRAID (fake raid) built into the motherboard chip set. I first built the server with the WD Red drives first and ran some casual tests with windows shares and iSCSI. Using windows network or iSCSI I could saturate my Gigabit Ethernet with no problem. Performance was not an issue. They ran great and I had no complaints over several days of use. This isn't too surprising as many NAS boxes use little Intel Atom processors. Next I did a comparison by replacing the WD Red drives with WD Black 750GB drives I had on the shelf. I didn't see much difference but I felt that copies of lots of small/medium files completed more quickly with the Red drives. Maybe the caching algorithm of drive was just better tuned for NAS on the Red drives. A plus is the Time Limited Error Recovery (TLER) which is an important part of drives that are designed for RAID deployment. And having a drive that is designed to be on 24X7 is great. I've switched back to the WD Red drives in my home-built NAS and I'll update this review as I live with the drives and report if there are any problems or notable excellence that stands out. Hope this bit of experience helps someone. Update: Dec 3, 2013 I have recently gotten a Buffalo LinkStation 420 2TB 2-DriveNAS Personal Cloud Storage and Media Server In comparing my home built FreeNAS system (on old core duo hardware) with two of these drives to the LinkStation with 2 Toshiba drives was interesting. The FreeNAS system with the WD NAS drives (both systems with RAID1) ran about 50% faster than the LinkStation. You can check my review on the LinkStation for more information about my comparison. The LinkStation might be a better option to get diskless for a very low price use these drives inside it. The small footprint and low power make it an attractive option. Bottom-line it seems there may be something to the NAS specific firmware of these drives.

Pros: Time Limited Error Recovery (TLER) for NAS/RAID usage. Price premium much lower/insignificant compared to what it used to be for NAS/RAID drives. Low power/Low temp. Cons: Warranty only 3 years (What happened to the 5-year warranties, WD?) I've seen failures in many drives from Seagate, WD, and other vendors in the past. Hard drives fail. Even SSDs fail sometimes. That's why RAID configurations are so popular. All versions of RAID configuration (except for RAID 0) introduce redundancy, such that if any single drive fails, no data need be lost. Full redundancy can be regained by rebuilding the array with a replacement drive, theoretically keeping your data safe from single single points of hardware failure indefinitely. These NAS drives go one step further in that their behavior is optimized for a RAID environment. In particular, Time Limited Error Recovery (TLER) allows them to rely on the redundancy built into the RAID controller and the overall array to handle the sorts of errors which will inevitably pop up at some point. This reduces risks to data that can be caused by the behaviors of regular desktop disks, whose designers optimized them for environments where there is no RAID array backup. I have been running RAID arrays regularly with desktop drives for over 6 years now, and it's been a pretty frequent occurrence where a drive would suddenly have to be rebuilt for no apparent reason. In all likelihood, the reason was just a few bad sectors on the disk, which happens all the time. The total failure rate of drives in a RAID has been a little above normal, but the total rebuild rate without total failure has been very high. Read up on TLER, and you'll understand why that is expected behavior with desktop drives but not with NAS drives. The total drive rebuild process is actually fairly risky to the integrity of the data, considering that in most configurations there is no redundancy while this is happening. Therefore, making sure that a total rebuild doesn't happen unless necessary is a pretty good idea if you want to protect your data. That's why I am upgrading my RAID arrays with these drives. In response to the reviewer who complained that the WDIDLE3 issue affects these drives: I just bought 4 of these drives in the 1TB version from Amazon. (July 2015) All are model WD10EFRX. I ran WDIDLE3 /R to read the current value of the timer on all four of them before connecting them to my RAID controller. All four came set to 300 seconds (5 minutes.) This is a very reasonable value for most NAS/RAID usage, and certainly not as problematic as the 8 second timer that caused the well-known problems on some previous WD drives. If you're using these to mount an OS drive or a drive in Windows, that 5 minute timer will probably never be invoked. If you're using these on a 24/7 NAS or for non-OS storage in Linux like I do, that timer could lead to considerable power savings and reduced average temperatures, the latter of which will probably extend the life of the drive, not shorten it. The only way I could see the 300 second idle timer being a problem is if you're running a script that causes disk access every 6 minutes (or 10 or 15.) i.e. if there's something that regularly forces spin-up right after the disk idle has gone into effect. In that case, WDIDLE3 is included on the ultimate boot CD version 5.3.5 and can be used to disable the timer. An idle timeout of 300 seconds is a pretty good feature in most cases, though. P.S. I have four more 3TB versions of this drive in transit for my NAS (the 1TBs were for my linux desktop) I will check the default WDIDLE3 values on them as well and post here if they prove to be different.

I will try to keep this short. I have owned over 10 Western Digital hard-drives and I have only ever had one go bad on me, but it was in a very hot slim height PC and that was 5 years ago. These drives have continued the Western Digital legacy (at least for me, maybe I am lucky). I own 4 of the WD Red 2 TB Hard Drives. 2 of the drives I bought here on Amazon, 2 of the drives I bought a week later on the Egg Site... Amazon had decent packaging, Egg had probably more packaging than was needed (and that is never a bad thing when it comes to hard-drives) I installed the first 2 drives, absolutely no problems. I immediately ran long hard drive tests using Seagate Seatools. 5 hours later and the drives are completely fine. I am using these to store large 1080p movie files (18GB's a piece usually). I use one drive to mirror the other using a program called Synchronicity. This is for the simplest (and in my opinion best) form of redundancy. I ran the long harddrive tests every 2 days for the next 6 days and the 2 drives passed completely fine on both of them (they were both nearly full from consolidating my movie collection to these drives). I bought 2 more of these drives on Egg when they were on sale and I had the exact same experience as before, they are perfect. I now have a total of 8TB of storage from these drives. (4TB for storing files, and 4TB for redundancy). Pros: Good value depending on when you buy (I got first batch for $106.99 a piece and the second batch for $99 a piece) I wouldn't pay over $120 for these. Reliable (I have had these for about a month and have ran many long drive tests and have had no errors so far. I will continue to do so and update this review) Cons: I don't have any thing bad to say about these drives. Other Advice: If you receive a drive that wasn't packaged well THEN RETURN IT. You can only blame yourself if you use and don't return a drive that is packaged incorrectly, and then the drive goes bad.

Purchased 4 Western Digital Red WD10EFRX to go along with a QNAP TS-469-PRO-US NAS, to be used on my personal vmware cluster. Drives bolted into chassis and came online without a problem. Drives ran quietly, and were immediately identified by the QNAP NAS. This combination of NAS and HDs seems to work flawlessly as of 2 months into my purchase. The WD10EFRX drives are quiet, and run cool. Performance is good. I rate them 5 stars, so far. I'll post an update to this review at 6 months if I can remember to do so...or as soon as I encounter a problem with either of these products. (At this point, I only wish I had the money to buy BIGGER WD Red drives, and a Qnap NAS with room for more HDs! Great combo! Way to hit it out of the park QNAP and Western Digital!) Edit: 02/05/2014 It has been 6 months, and these drives have continued to perform flawlessly. No glitches, or dead drives. They are cool, quiet, and fast, and have worked without issue in my QNAP TS-469-PRO-US.

I ordered 4 1TB WD Reds for a home Raid 5 NAS. The only thing keeping this from being 5 star is that one of the drives is a mis-matched firmware, so I have 3 drives with 4k byte sectors, and 1 drive with 512 byte sectors (reported sector size, physical is 4k to my knowledge). I do not know what effect this may have on read/write performance, however, in a RAID it's preferable and recommended to have everything identical. In this case, it is clear the firmware is not the same on 1 of my 4 drives. The packaging of this product was acceptable, the drives were in their boxes with isolating plastic trays, however there was no cushioning packaging between the product container and the shipping container, so any damage to the shipping container would have translated to a damaged product. I would have preferred some foam or bubble wrap to act as shock absorbption. As a side note, I am a Prime customer, and the "free 2-day shipping" meant that my hard drives were handed off from UPS to the USPS for delivery to my home. I was already nervous at having UPS handle my delicate mechanical storage units, I was very unhappy with the prospect of them handing off the package to be kicked around by yet another set of hands. Luckily the package appears to have been treated with more care than I'm accustomed to seeing, and after a few weeks (and a complete sector-sector scan), the drives are performing perfectly.

I can't speak to the longevity or performance compared to other products, but I ordered two of these, and they have both been running for the last 4 hours (without a work load on them) in my Network Attached Storage and are at about 90 degrees F. My NAS ran a test on them and says they're both in good health. *edit a few weeks later: they are also very quiet, and I have transferred a very large amount of data on and off of it every day for the last few weeks... no issues - my Network Attached Storage still says they're in good health. If this "status" ever changes or I encounter any issues, I will at that point amend this review. Until then, assume the previous statements to still be true. Ps. These rated as highly reliable, and spin at 5400 RPM. I would have preferred 7200 RPM for the faster read/write speed, but to get that speed with the same reliability rating in a NAS evironment, the price was double to triple what these were. Also, being limited by network speed and computer processing power, these seem quite good - and I couldn't justify the pay increase for the small speed gain. With the rate at which this technology develops, I'm sure my next upgrade will have more storage, faster speeds, and probably cost less... so I'll wait until then :)

A long time ago I bought a NAS for backups and for a central store for my files as well as my wife's files (music, photos, videos, etc.) Unfortunately, the drives that came with the NAS were not RAID-ready drives. The company I am sure wanted to save money, and provide a lower price point for customers, but that lower cost comes at a hefty price in the form of a drive that cannot recover when configured in a RAID 0 array when a sector goes bad. In normal desktop drives, if a sector goes bad it will retry reading it to get enough data to attempt to fix the problem, which can be a slow process. In a RAID environment, a drive that does that is marked as a failed drive. The RAID is not tolerant of faults like that, especially in a RAID 0 configuration where all drives are treated as a single unit. One drive fails, the whole thing is broken and all the data is lost. That's exactly what happened to me. Bad sector, long retry, the NAS timed out waiting to read from the drive, drive marked failed, BYE BYE DATA. Harsh lesson to learn, and I no longer use RAID 0 because of that. I also no longer use desktop drives. Enter the WD Red drives, which are fault tolerant for scenarios like this. They include a technology called "time limited error recovery" (TLER). Basically it's a very short window of time where the drive tries to read a sector, and if it's unable to read it within that window, it simply returns an error instead of retrying over and over to read the sector. This avoids the pitfall of other drives which will cause the RAID controller to mark the drive failed. I slowly replaced each drive in my NAS as they inevitably failed, thanks to not being fault tolerant. The last drive was replaced in December 2014, and the first one I replaced was back in Jan 2014. I have yet to have a single issue with these drives. The NAS drive is used fairly frequently, too, with large video files and backups being pushed on it from our PCs. The NAS is on 24x7 as well, so it never gets a rest. With a three year warranty, I'm really loving these drives so far.

I needed 14 NAS drives to build two RAID 5 arrays. One 8 bay and one 4 bay with 2 backup drives for redundant drive failure replacement. These drives fit the bill perfectly. Out of all of these drives only one had a bad cluster and there has not been any failure of the drives in over a year. They are fast, quiet and have fairly low temperatures (100 – 104 degrees Fahrenheit). Rebuilding the array, resizing and data wiping are all fairly fast but I didn’t buy these for the speed but for maximum reliability and low failure rates which they deliver in spades.

2 Adet satın aldım. Ürüne diyecek bir şey yok Üstelik Tam bir F/P ürünü Ancak mekanik bir diski üst üste koyup kutu içinde göndermek nedir? Rsmen iş bilmezlik. Bereket (bence şansıma) kafa vurması vs rastlamadım Sağlam geldi. Ama bu tarz ürünlerin nasıl gonderilmesi gerektiği paketleme aşamasında ekstra özen gösterilmeyi gerektiriyor......

I had a WD Green in my Synology DS212j (though not listed on their compatible website). After 5 years my Raid1 NAS volume went degraded so this was the replacement. The red WD are a good choice for home NAS as provide in theory a longer life before you have to panic about swapping out! It's nice, quiet, and cool, humming away, and if it behaves like my other WD Reds I use in work servers, it'll perform well for a fair few years of punishment. WD support is also industry leading. Using their online warranty checker on any failed disks usually results in the free issue of a replacement. Haven't used it much but definitely worth the extra few pounds. A point of note, it doesn't say anywhere I could see in the description or on the device, but this is 5400rpm. Update Jan 18- the other drive in my NAS went degraded last week so I bought a second one of these. It was unfortunately DOA but within 24hrs Amazon had another one at my door! Enterprise level Prime delivery. Thanks. Replacement works perfectly.

Lo compré para mi Synology DiskStation DS119j, hasta ahorita ha funcionado muy bien, espero que me dure muchos años.

Ich habe diesen Plattentype seit 2 Jahren im Einsatz. ZUERST DAS POSITIVE: Unhörbar leise, brummt und vibriert nicht. Für eine HHD schnelle Zugriffszeiten. Bleibt in 2 Fujitsu Rechnern - laufen im Normalbetrieb lüfterlos - auf 32°C kühl. (Crystal DiskInfo) Keine Defekte bzw. Ausfälle bei täglichem 10 Std Dauerbetrieb. Hatte früher die Caviar Blue in diversen Rechnern im Einsatz, welche jedoch brummen und das PC-Gehäuse zum Mitschwingen anregen; es brummt halt in der Bude. Außerdem werden die Blue's 45° heiß. In 2 Satreceivern waren Caviar Green eingebaut. Da sie wegen dem Ökoblödsinn immer im Slow-Fast Modus fahren, was im Timeshiftbetrieb (läuft immer bei mir) und spontaner Aufnahme zu 2 sekundigen Bild-/Tonhaklern führte. Mit der Red Plus ist das nicht der Fall. Ökoblödsinn halt!!!!!!! Die Schnelligkeit der Red Plus übertrifft sogar bei Crysal DiskMark8 die Caviar Blu bei Read/Write um ca.30 MB/S (von Blue 130 auf Red 155) obwohl sie langsamer dreht. Ich kann die Platte nur empfehlen. NUN DAS NEGATIVE: Meine vor 2 Jahren bei Amazon gekauften Platten kam im Original WD-Karton und Umverpackungskarton, so wie sich's gehört. Meine jetzt gekauften Platte ( 3 Stück, 1TB) bei Amazon waren a) nur 1 lagig in Luftpolsterfolie gewickelt und dann b) nur in einem art großen Briefkuvert verpackt. SOWAS GEHT GAR NICHT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Auch wenn die WD-Technologie den Schreib-/Lesekopf immer in Ruheposition fährt und somit wenig passieren kann, ist diese Verpackung-/Versandart von Amazon nicht akzeptabel. Deshalb einen Stern weniger. UPDATE VOM 3.1.2023 Wieder eine Platte benötigt und bestellt. Platte nach wie vor absolut empfehlenswert. VERPACKUNG diesmal vom Amazon AKZEPTABEL! Delhalb Bewertung auf 5 Sterne erhöht

Non sono qui per presentarvi l'articolo, dato che le informazioni sono facilmente reperibili sul sito del produttore. Vorrei invece descrivere la mia esperienza con questo prodotto. Ho acquistato l'articolo il 16/09/2015 e mi è stato consegnato il 17/09/2015. Appena installato ho iniziato subito una serie di test intensivi per verificarne la bontà: dapprima con badblocks e poi con smartctl (sono due utilities a riga di comando). Il test con badblocks (eseguito in modalità lettura-scrittura distruttiva sull'intero disco compreso il MBR) ha impiegato circa 18,5 ore per il completamento: in questo test il disco viene scritto con vari pattern e poi riverificato. Avendo espressamente indicato di lanciarlo sull'intero disco ha controllato tutti i blocchi del disco (Dal blocco 0 al blocco 976762583). Il seconto test l'ho eseguito con smartctl perché alcuni HDD hanno la possibilità di rimappare al volo i blocchi rovinati e non darne quindi evidenza durante test quali badblocks, tuttavia essi sono visibili nelle informazioni S.M.A.R.T. Ho quindi provveduto ad effettuare due test, quello "Conveyance" che valuta i problemi legati al trasporto e quello "Short" che fa una verifica di integrità veloce ma ha comunque un'alta probabilità di rilevare gli errori pur non esaminando la superficie completa (azione già eseguita con badblocks). Ho quindi provveduto a controllare la sezione SMART del disco, di cui riporto l'output in calce e allego alcuni screenshot. Nessun test ha riportato errori e nessun settore è stato rimappato, ossia la superficie del disco è perfettamente integra così come le prestazioni. Inoltre il disco è perfettamente nuovo: le 19 ore di attività sono state tutte spese per i test ed è l'effetivo tempo trascorso da quando l'ho montato ad ora, l'unica cosa che non torna sono i 3 cicli di alimentazione (Power Cycle), ma ritengo siano imputabili a dei controlli interni della casa costruttrice. Concludo quindi dicendo che, almeno nel mio caso ed almeno per ora, ho ricevuto un ottimo disco: silenzioso, con una perfetta ed integra superficie, non usato in precedenza. Aggiungo che è perfettamente compatibile con Linux (attuamente Linux MINT 17.2 Cinmmanon) e le principali utility di controllo e monitoraggio dei dischi presenti in quest'ambiente. # sudo smartctl -iAl selftest /dev/sda smartctl 6.2 2013-07-26 r3841 [x86_64-linux-3.16.0-38-generic] (local build) Copyright (C) 2002-13, Bruce Allen, Christian Franke, [...] === START OF INFORMATION SECTION === Model Family: Western Digital Red (AF) Device Model: WDC WD10EFRX-68FYTN0 Serial Number: WD-WCC4J4TY7F0R LU WWN Device Id: 5 0014ee 20c0ee683 Firmware Version: 82.00A82 User Capacity: 1.000.204.886.016 bytes [1,00 TB] Sector Sizes: 512 bytes logical, 4096 bytes physical Rotation Rate: 5400 rpm Device is: In smartctl database [for details use: -P show] ATA Version is: ACS-2 (minor revision not indicated) SATA Version is: SATA 3.0, 6.0 Gb/s (current: 3.0 Gb/s) Local Time is: Fri Sep 18 18:17:50 2015 CEST SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability. SMART support is: Enabled === START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION === SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 16 Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds: ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x002f 200 200 051 Pre-fail Always - 0 3 Spin_Up_Time 0x0027 100 253 021 Pre-fail Always - 0 4 Start_Stop_Count 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always - 3 5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 200 200 140 Pre-fail Always - 0 7 Seek_Error_Rate 0x002e 200 200 000 Old_age Always - 0 9 Power_On_Hours 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always - 19 10 Spin_Retry_Count 0x0032 100 253 000 Old_age Always - 0 11 Calibration_Retry_Count 0x0032 100 253 000 Old_age Always - 0 12 Power_Cycle_Count 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always - 3 192 Power-Off_Retract_Count 0x0032 200 200 000 Old_age Always - 0 193 Load_Cycle_Count 0x0032 200 200 000 Old_age Always - 2 194 Temperature_Celsius 0x0022 107 106 000 Old_age Always - 36 196 Reallocated_Event_Count 0x0032 200 200 000 Old_age Always - 0 197 Current_Pending_Sector 0x0032 200 200 000 Old_age Always - 0 198 Offline_Uncorrectable 0x0030 100 253 000 Old_age Offline - 0 199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count 0x0032 200 200 000 Old_age Always - 0 200 Multi_Zone_Error_Rate 0x0008 100 253 000 Old_age Offline - 0 SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1 Num Test_Description Status Remaining LifeTime(hours) LBA_of_first_error # 1 Short offline Completed without error 00% 19 - # 2 Conveyance offline Completed without error 00% 19 -