While the WD Green is a fine drive, "server grade" or "enterprise class" drives typically are designed for uses where reliability against failure is an important issue and they carry a longer warranty.
While the WD Green is a fine drive, "server grade" or "enterprise class" drives typically are designed for uses where reliability against failure is an important issue and they carry a longer warranty.
I wonder why the Apple-bashers think that if they keep repeating the same lie that it becomes true.
There is no such legal or standard definition of 'server grade'. Period. End of discussion (except that the Apple haters will continue to spread the same lie).
Just to share my experience with you guys on the WD green 2TB drives.
I had one 2 months ago to store my iTunes musics and tv shows, and have it as an external drive attached to my mini via USB. 2 weeks later as I was watching a tv show in my iTunes while it's downloading some other shows onto the Hdd my iTunes hanged, and I had to force quit it. Afterwards it turned out that the WD hdd failed on me, brought it to the service centre and it was beyond repair and they gave me a replacement unit.
Now I only use it as a storage device where I only switch it on when needed and never put it under heavy workload, I would never go for a green drive from WD again as the last failure happened within 2 weeks and it totally messed up my iTunes library.
Just to share my experience with you guys on the WD green 2TB drives.
I had one 2 months ago to store my iTunes musics and tv shows, and have it as an external drive attached to my mini via USB. 2 weeks later as I was watching a tv show in my iTunes while it's downloading some other shows onto the Hdd my iTunes hanged, and I had to force quit it. Afterwards it turned out that the WD hdd failed on me, brought it to the service centre and it was beyond repair and they gave me a replacement unit.
Now I only use it as a storage device where I only switch it on when needed and never put it under heavy workload, I would never go for a green drive from WD again as the last failure happened within 2 weeks and it totally messed up my iTunes library.
From what I've read that is how HDDs typically fail. Id set, pretty much soon after you've started using them or well after the warranty is out.
There's a wide variety of what can be considered "server-grade" hardware. I have all kinds of hardware in service in various customer datacenters.
In our customers' SANs and other arrays, we have variety of drives in several tiers of storage. SSD RAID1+0 would be the fastest storage you could build now, but most of our customers have FC or SAS 15k in their top tier and then lower tiers have slower drives or interfaces. Some customers have SAS 10k in their bulk storage, some have SATA 7.2k or 5.4k. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the disks in bulk disk arrays or in backup-to-disk arrays are WD Green drives.
I think many of drives we have in service have 4-16 MB cache right. 64 MB cache is quite a bit.
I wonder why the Apple-bashers think that if they keep repeating the same lie that it becomes true.
There is no such legal or standard definition of 'server grade'. Period. End of discussion (except that the Apple haters will continue to spread the same lie).
So by your own admission one of the key selling points of the Time Capsule is a meaningless statement. Got it.
The stuff about those raising this issue being Apple-bashers, Apple-haters or whatever is frivolous name-calling.
Apple makes some great stuff that we all enjoy and love, but they're not perfect nor are they above reproach.
Yes, tech sites and some posters have an agenda in attacking all things Apple, but let's look at the topic at hand.
While the WD Green is a fine drive, "server grade" or "enterprise class" drives typically are designed for uses where reliability against failure is an important issue and they carry a longer warranty.
Indeed. My point remains. Either (A) "server-grade" means something, or (B) it doesn't mean anything.
A.
If "server-grade" means something, then it is reasonable to expect that the drive inside the Time Capsule is different from an average drive found in most non-server computers, regardless of how "good', "quiet" or whatever it is. Regardless of if this "server-grade" drive is just rebadged, or randomly pulled out of the standard production line. It doesn't matter if the WD Green is used in *some* servers, what matters is that it is used in *most non-server computers*, hence it is a common consumer drive. Apple acting in good faith should at least ensure that the Time Capsule hard disk it is somehow different, if not better.
B.
If "server-grade" doesn't mean anything, then it is reasonable to conclude that Apple is simply using a meaningless term as a key selling point of one of their hardware accessories. People can take it from there, whether to "bash Apple", file a lawsuit, or just accept it. Doesn't change the fact that an essentially meaningless term is used as a key selling point for an Apple product... Which is rare.
"Server-grade" used to mean to some that the MTBF was a million hours.
That ought to do it. Even if the numbers were fudged a bit, a drive that runs without dying for hundreds of thousands of hours is "server-grade" to me.
Both Caviar Green Drives are in the million hour MTBF range. But WD sells an ever higher-spec drive, the Caviar Blue, which is its new "server-grade" (meaning bestest) drive. They call it that, because they want you to buy it for more dollars per byte.
So the Time Capsule doesn't have those. So its spec can only suggest that the drives within are ONLY good for around 114 years on the average--the "old" spec. (The million hours.)
Who needs their drive to run continuously for over 25 years?
Well, server grade or not, I bought one yesterday as my WD NAS died last week.
Very easy to set up as usual (I had an Airport Extreme), much faster than the WD and absolutely silent. I thought the Iomega I have as a media server was quiet but this is another level.
Impressed.
Now I need to decide whether to sell the AE or use it as a range extender.
My 4TB NAS has 2 of these WD Green Drives. It has seen heavy usage over an 18-month usage period (knock on wood) and the drives are super fast and completely silent! Of course, RAID 0 has a lot to do with the fast part and I have never connected them with eSATA but only with FireWire 800 and they still feel very fast. The best part is that they make no noise at all, because there is no fan and the design of the housing lets plenty of air to flow through.
I can only recommend Western Digital as a brand and in particular, these Green Drives. I need to make a purchase of another high-capacity storage device because my 1TB Time Capsule and 4TB NAS are filled to capacity (minus 10% left free on purpose). I was hoping to be able to hold out until there is a ThunderBolt device available, but I kind of need one now. It looks like LaCie will be first to market with their "Little Big Disk" or whatever they're called.
Question: How much of the drive's 10% that I've left free on both my TC and my RAID array can I safely use on a temporary basis? We're talking almost 1/2 TB, so it might be good enough for another month or two...
and I'll plug in my RAID 1 external storage. The Time Capsule does not convince me at all. WD Green is a poor quality harddrive, I would never buy it as my primary storage.
Of all the drives I've dealt with in 15 years of IT, Western Digital have consistently been the drives I've had the least amount of problems with followed by Fujitsu.
Seagate and Maxtor have both been the worst I've ever dealt with. I'd rather a Western Digital than any other brand for my data.
I think there are three flawed lines of thinking with some of the comments on this thread.
1. "Well, anyone using this for backup would use RAID anyway, so it doesn't matter if it is server-grade"
This is besides the point that Apple is advertising this as "server grade".
2. "Well, hard drives tend to last longer nowadays, so it doesn't matter if it's for servers or not"
This is besides the point that Apple is advertising the hard drives in the Time Capsule as somehow DIFFERENT from ordinary hard drives.
3. "The media is blowing this out of proportion and recycling an old attack on Apple"
This is besides the point that a non server-grade hard drive was found in the updated Time Capsule.
Any reasonable interpretation of Apple advertising the hard drives in the Time Capsule as "server-grade" would be:
A. These hard drives in Time Capsule are different than the ones in consumer computers
B. These hard drives in Time Capsule are normally used in servers
Where A and B are not fulfilled, Apple is not being truthful, ie. falsely advertising the Time Capsule.
It could be a mistake in the production line, or what I suspect is a product manager trying to shave some costs, and maybe Apple just hasn't updated the website to remove "server-grade" references.
Actually I have seen servers using these drives in their enclosures. HP sell them. They have them in their blades and their low end servers. Therefore your points are invalid as clearly they are server grade drives if they are being sold by the likes of HP in their SERVERS.
Indeed. My point remains. Either (A) "server-grade" means something, or (B) it doesn't mean anything.
A.
If "server-grade" means something, then it is reasonable to expect that the drive inside the Time Capsule is different from an average drive found in most non-server computers, regardless of how "good', "quiet" or whatever it is. Regardless of if this "server-grade" drive is just rebadged, or randomly pulled out of the standard production line. It doesn't matter if the WD Green is used in *some* servers, what matters is that it is used in *most non-server computers*, hence it is a common consumer drive. Apple acting in good faith should at least ensure that the Time Capsule hard disk it is somehow different, if not better.
B.
If "server-grade" doesn't mean anything, then it is reasonable to conclude that Apple is simply using a meaningless term as a key selling point of one of their hardware accessories. People can take it from there, whether to "bash Apple", file a lawsuit, or just accept it. Doesn't change the fact that an essentially meaningless term is used as a key selling point for an Apple product... Which is rare.
or
C. 'server-grade' means something different than the definition you are making up.
In the real world (as opposed to your 'bash everything Apple ever does' fantasy land), 'server grade' means 'good enough to be used in servers'. Since people use these drives in servers, then they are server grade.
Whether you think it's a fluff marketing term or not is irrelevant.
Oh, and btw, it's hardly a 'key point' in selling TC. TC is being sold in the basis of its ease of use and capabilities. The fact that it uses a server grade hard disk isn't a key factor by any means.
This is the exact same story as when the first Time Capsule came out and after a week or so of arguing about it, it turned out that Apple was not lying as per the actual definition of "server grade."
Five seconds of Googling tells you that a server grade hard drive is one that is rated a million hours MTBF and guaranteed as such.
The drive in question is the energy efficient model of one of the best hard drive series made. If Seagate or whomever wants to guarantee the MTBF then it's officially "server grade." It seems likely to me that this is just as much of a non-story as the first time.
Comments
While the WD Green is a fine drive, "server grade" or "enterprise class" drives typically are designed for uses where reliability against failure is an important issue and they carry a longer warranty.
I wonder why the Apple-bashers think that if they keep repeating the same lie that it becomes true.
There is no such legal or standard definition of 'server grade'. Period. End of discussion (except that the Apple haters will continue to spread the same lie).
I had one 2 months ago to store my iTunes musics and tv shows, and have it as an external drive attached to my mini via USB. 2 weeks later as I was watching a tv show in my iTunes while it's downloading some other shows onto the Hdd my iTunes hanged, and I had to force quit it. Afterwards it turned out that the WD hdd failed on me, brought it to the service centre and it was beyond repair and they gave me a replacement unit.
Now I only use it as a storage device where I only switch it on when needed and never put it under heavy workload, I would never go for a green drive from WD again as the last failure happened within 2 weeks and it totally messed up my iTunes library.
Just to share my experience with you guys on the WD green 2TB drives.
I had one 2 months ago to store my iTunes musics and tv shows, and have it as an external drive attached to my mini via USB. 2 weeks later as I was watching a tv show in my iTunes while it's downloading some other shows onto the Hdd my iTunes hanged, and I had to force quit it. Afterwards it turned out that the WD hdd failed on me, brought it to the service centre and it was beyond repair and they gave me a replacement unit.
Now I only use it as a storage device where I only switch it on when needed and never put it under heavy workload, I would never go for a green drive from WD again as the last failure happened within 2 weeks and it totally messed up my iTunes library.
From what I've read that is how HDDs typically fail. Id set, pretty much soon after you've started using them or well after the warranty is out.
In our customers' SANs and other arrays, we have variety of drives in several tiers of storage. SSD RAID1+0 would be the fastest storage you could build now, but most of our customers have FC or SAS 15k in their top tier and then lower tiers have slower drives or interfaces. Some customers have SAS 10k in their bulk storage, some have SATA 7.2k or 5.4k. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the disks in bulk disk arrays or in backup-to-disk arrays are WD Green drives.
I think many of drives we have in service have 4-16 MB cache right. 64 MB cache is quite a bit.
I wonder why the Apple-bashers think that if they keep repeating the same lie that it becomes true.
There is no such legal or standard definition of 'server grade'. Period. End of discussion (except that the Apple haters will continue to spread the same lie).
So by your own admission one of the key selling points of the Time Capsule is a meaningless statement. Got it.
The stuff about those raising this issue being Apple-bashers, Apple-haters or whatever is frivolous name-calling.
Apple makes some great stuff that we all enjoy and love, but they're not perfect nor are they above reproach.
Yes, tech sites and some posters have an agenda in attacking all things Apple, but let's look at the topic at hand.
While the WD Green is a fine drive, "server grade" or "enterprise class" drives typically are designed for uses where reliability against failure is an important issue and they carry a longer warranty.
Indeed. My point remains. Either (A) "server-grade" means something, or (B) it doesn't mean anything.
A.
If "server-grade" means something, then it is reasonable to expect that the drive inside the Time Capsule is different from an average drive found in most non-server computers, regardless of how "good', "quiet" or whatever it is. Regardless of if this "server-grade" drive is just rebadged, or randomly pulled out of the standard production line. It doesn't matter if the WD Green is used in *some* servers, what matters is that it is used in *most non-server computers*, hence it is a common consumer drive. Apple acting in good faith should at least ensure that the Time Capsule hard disk it is somehow different, if not better.
B.
If "server-grade" doesn't mean anything, then it is reasonable to conclude that Apple is simply using a meaningless term as a key selling point of one of their hardware accessories. People can take it from there, whether to "bash Apple", file a lawsuit, or just accept it. Doesn't change the fact that an essentially meaningless term is used as a key selling point for an Apple product... Which is rare.
That ought to do it. Even if the numbers were fudged a bit, a drive that runs without dying for hundreds of thousands of hours is "server-grade" to me.
Both Caviar Green Drives are in the million hour MTBF range. But WD sells an ever higher-spec drive, the Caviar Blue, which is its new "server-grade" (meaning bestest) drive. They call it that, because they want you to buy it for more dollars per byte.
So the Time Capsule doesn't have those. So its spec can only suggest that the drives within are ONLY good for around 114 years on the average--the "old" spec. (The million hours.)
Who needs their drive to run continuously for over 25 years?
Show of hands?
Who needs their drive to run continuously for over 25 years?
Show of hands?
What, you don't have backups from 1986 still available on a fixed disk somewhere?
Who needs their drive to run continuously for over 25 years?
Are you implying today's hard drives never fail?
What, you don't have backups from 1986 still available on a fixed disk somewhere?
Side note... My Syquest disks didn't even make it past the 6 month mark sometimes.
Very easy to set up as usual (I had an Airport Extreme), much faster than the WD and absolutely silent. I thought the Iomega I have as a media server was quiet but this is another level.
Impressed.
Now I need to decide whether to sell the AE or use it as a range extender.
I can only recommend Western Digital as a brand and in particular, these Green Drives. I need to make a purchase of another high-capacity storage device because my 1TB Time Capsule and 4TB NAS are filled to capacity (minus 10% left free on purpose). I was hoping to be able to hold out until there is a ThunderBolt device available, but I kind of need one now. It looks like LaCie will be first to market with their "Little Big Disk" or whatever they're called.
Question: How much of the drive's 10% that I've left free on both my TC and my RAID array can I safely use on a temporary basis? We're talking almost 1/2 TB, so it might be good enough for another month or two...
and I'll plug in my RAID 1 external storage. The Time Capsule does not convince me at all. WD Green is a poor quality harddrive, I would never buy it as my primary storage.
Of all the drives I've dealt with in 15 years of IT, Western Digital have consistently been the drives I've had the least amount of problems with followed by Fujitsu.
Seagate and Maxtor have both been the worst I've ever dealt with. I'd rather a Western Digital than any other brand for my data.
I think there are three flawed lines of thinking with some of the comments on this thread.
1. "Well, anyone using this for backup would use RAID anyway, so it doesn't matter if it is server-grade"
This is besides the point that Apple is advertising this as "server grade".
2. "Well, hard drives tend to last longer nowadays, so it doesn't matter if it's for servers or not"
This is besides the point that Apple is advertising the hard drives in the Time Capsule as somehow DIFFERENT from ordinary hard drives.
3. "The media is blowing this out of proportion and recycling an old attack on Apple"
This is besides the point that a non server-grade hard drive was found in the updated Time Capsule.
Any reasonable interpretation of Apple advertising the hard drives in the Time Capsule as "server-grade" would be:
A. These hard drives in Time Capsule are different than the ones in consumer computers
B. These hard drives in Time Capsule are normally used in servers
Where A and B are not fulfilled, Apple is not being truthful, ie. falsely advertising the Time Capsule.
It could be a mistake in the production line, or what I suspect is a product manager trying to shave some costs, and maybe Apple just hasn't updated the website to remove "server-grade" references.
Actually I have seen servers using these drives in their enclosures. HP sell them. They have them in their blades and their low end servers. Therefore your points are invalid as clearly they are server grade drives if they are being sold by the likes of HP in their SERVERS.
Indeed. My point remains. Either (A) "server-grade" means something, or (B) it doesn't mean anything.
A.
If "server-grade" means something, then it is reasonable to expect that the drive inside the Time Capsule is different from an average drive found in most non-server computers, regardless of how "good', "quiet" or whatever it is. Regardless of if this "server-grade" drive is just rebadged, or randomly pulled out of the standard production line. It doesn't matter if the WD Green is used in *some* servers, what matters is that it is used in *most non-server computers*, hence it is a common consumer drive. Apple acting in good faith should at least ensure that the Time Capsule hard disk it is somehow different, if not better.
B.
If "server-grade" doesn't mean anything, then it is reasonable to conclude that Apple is simply using a meaningless term as a key selling point of one of their hardware accessories. People can take it from there, whether to "bash Apple", file a lawsuit, or just accept it. Doesn't change the fact that an essentially meaningless term is used as a key selling point for an Apple product... Which is rare.
or
C. 'server-grade' means something different than the definition you are making up.
In the real world (as opposed to your 'bash everything Apple ever does' fantasy land), 'server grade' means 'good enough to be used in servers'. Since people use these drives in servers, then they are server grade.
Whether you think it's a fluff marketing term or not is irrelevant.
Oh, and btw, it's hardly a 'key point' in selling TC. TC is being sold in the basis of its ease of use and capabilities. The fact that it uses a server grade hard disk isn't a key factor by any means.
Just one more excuse for the Apple hating trolls to get their panties in a wad over something stupid.
As opposed to a bunch of apparently mindless drones slavishly defending Apple?
Kettle, please meet Pot.
This is the exact same story as when the first Time Capsule came out and after a week or so of arguing about it, it turned out that Apple was not lying as per the actual definition of "server grade."
Five seconds of Googling tells you that a server grade hard drive is one that is rated a million hours MTBF and guaranteed as such.
The drive in question is the energy efficient model of one of the best hard drive series made. If Seagate or whomever wants to guarantee the MTBF then it's officially "server grade." It seems likely to me that this is just as much of a non-story as the first time.
Thanks for the post, best info on the issue.
As opposed to a bunch of apparently mindless drones slavishly defending Apple?
Kettle, please meet Pot.
How is pointing out that someone is flat out lying in attacking Apple for things that aren't true 'slavishly defending Apple'?