HGST Deskstar NAS 4 TB Review
by Ganesh T S on November 22, 2014 2:00 PM ESTSingle Client Access - NAS Benchmarks
Evaluation of single client performance in a networked environment was done by configuring three drives in RAID-5 in the QNAP TS-EC1279U-SAS-RP unit. Two of the network links were bonded (configured with 802.3ad LACP). Our usual Intel NASPT / robocopy benchmarks were processed from a virtual machine in our NAS testbed. The results are presented in the graphs below.
For almost all workloads, there is no discernible difference between the performance of various drives, indicating that it is the network acting as a bottleneck for single client access. Differences start to appear when there are multiple clients accessing the NAS.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
39 Comments
View All Comments
abhaxus - Sunday, November 23, 2014 - link
According to WD, the Red Pro is rated at 1 in 10^15 not 10^14 before URE. Are you working from some other data or is your comparison chart inaccurate? Planning on purchasing several drives in the next few weeks and that was going to be the key factor in my decision.ganeshts - Sunday, November 23, 2014 - link
Thanks for bringing this to my attention.When the WD Red Pro was launched, the datasheet had URE < 10 in 10^15, which I had denoted as 1 in 10^14 in our initial review. Backed up by a third-party post on another forum here: http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/western-...
It looks like WD has fixed this 'error' in their latest datasheet. I will update the table shortly.
abhaxus - Monday, November 24, 2014 - link
I do remember that from their launch now that you mention it. Still torn about my purchase.Julian Boolean - Saturday, December 5, 2015 - link
Fact : As of Today (Dec 5th 2015) the Western Digital Spec Sheet for The Red Pro STILL lists the URE rate as 10 in 10^15. It is not "a mistake in the specs sheet". It has been listed that way since product launch and has never been corrected. 1 in 10^14 = 10 in 10^15. This is a 1 in 10^14 drive. I called WD myself to confirm this. Three days later I got the answer I suspected all along. It IS 10 in 10^15 ( which equals 1 in 10^14). This is just clever marketing, and it irks me to no end that countless review sites such as this have incorrectly listed the URE rates.I cannot tell you how many review sites have made the mistake of listing it as 1 in 10^15.
jota83 - Monday, November 24, 2014 - link
Read throughly the backblaze report on reliability of hard-disks, as pointed out above. HGST (former hitachi) build very robust hard disks, and they deal with vibration pretty good. Thats one of the factors (not sure if mentioned in the article) that the NAS deskstar incorporates,and which could be rated as "enterprise only".Mikemk - Sunday, November 23, 2014 - link
I'd like to see http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8... reviewedAbRASiON - Sunday, November 23, 2014 - link
7200rpm? Sorry but as far as I'm concerned, that's not a NAS drive. Nope nope nope nope and nope. Too hot, too noisy, silly - just silly design choice.Daiz - Sunday, November 23, 2014 - link
hmm, you might want to tell the likes of HP about that since they let you stuff their NAS appliances with up to 15k RPM drives. Not all NAS appliances sit in your living room ;)MikeMurphy - Sunday, November 23, 2014 - link
Reliability of HDDs has become a huge problem. I bought this drive as it's apparently the most reliable consumer mechanical drive out there. I was hoping there would be some commentary on this.NoSoMo - Monday, November 24, 2014 - link
Anyone interested in HDDs and their reliability should check this article out...https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliabil...