According to Western Digital, this disk is a general public model. There are also similar models for servers, but they are more expensive as they have a lower bit error rate 1x1015 while this one has 1x1014, 600,000 load/unload cycles (300,000 for this one) and is covered by a 5 years warranty, while this one is covered for 3 years."
Oh friggin boo hoo. One file in a series of backups will get corrupted because of a bit. You shouldn't be relying on one backup anyway if your information is THAT critical.
the drives apple put in are great, they are no server drives, cause they are not scuzzy drives, but we knew that. But they are top notch drives anyway, see the stats about them. They are prosumer drives...who the f. uses scuzzy drives without a server rack anyway... what a bunch of rubbish...
My web server has a fast raid of caviar blacks. My home server has a mirrored raid of caviar greens. I don't know if the greens can accurately be called "server-grade", but they make the most sense for a time capsule. Time capsules don't need high performance. They only need reliability and average performance. And using less power is always a nice bonus. As long as the greens prove to be reliable, they should be a great choice. Mine are probably a year or two old and I've had no issues.
exactly, there are no server grade drives...nowadays, with modern i/o, this drives are so good, and their mttf is so good, that server grade or not is beside the point.
"[Update] According to Western Digital, this disk is a general public model. There are also similar models for servers, but they are more expensive as they have a lower bit error rate 1x1015 while this one has 1x1014, 600,000 load/unload cycles (300,000 for this one) and is covered by a 5 years warranty, while this one is covered for 3 years."
That disk in the Time Capsule is NOT "server grade". Apple has a tendency for hyperbole but calling it "server grade" is in this case, a lie. I make this decision based on the statement by Western Digital reported by Hardmac.com that his is NOT the model of hard disks used for servers, hence it is not a "server grade" hard disk.
All kinds of companies do these kinds of things, but there is definitely change underfoot at Apple as it becomes more of a "mainstream" kind of company, if it isn't already.
With Steve unwell it is sad to me to see signs of lack of cohesiveness at Apple, my theme for the year. But all things change.
Flame away.
Obviously I am not going to flame you cause I respect your posting here, a lot, and I read your posts with care. But I think you are splitting hairs here. The hitachis they used to have in time capsule were not really server grade either, but tech is growing so fast, that last years "server grade" drives are shit compared to todays run of the mill drives. Apple is putting in the best prosumer devices in time capsule. Ok, they could have opted for server grade drives, charged 300 at least more, for a product that would be shit anyway in a year or so...and they are right to not do that, they are opting for the best prosumer drive now, to keep the costs down. Good enough, server enough, for me. Tech has advanced so much the lines are blurred.
Seriously, guys... there is nothing wrong with the WD Greens.
*) I use them in my OWN Server (attached via iSCSI) for years now. I have a 6 TB (4x2TB) RAID-5 with critical Data, and a 5 TB (6x 1TB) RAID-5 Testbed. I re-created the Testbed more times than I can remember in the last 3 years, and no HDD failed me, ever. I can personally attest that these drives meet the needs of a TC perfectly.
*) A client of mine uses 9 of them for a 12 TB mission-critical Aperture-Library for 1,5 years by now, and not a single drive has failed me once.
*) Hardmac actually replaced the HDD for a WD Green one in this Guide, and wrote about the benefits it brings.
In short, the WD Caviar Green is the perfect choice for TC, stop complaining.
I have never had HDD failure based on the hardware itself since 1999. All sort of brands. Server or consumer does not matter much to me. I rather have high transfer or read speed over life expectancy. My current NAS RAID 0 configuration uses Hitachi HDDs, the cheapest 1TB 7200rpm HDD at the time.
For WD, there are Green for Eco, Blue for normal and Black for speed. I would rate them highly.
As much of a PITA it is to deal with a failed drive in a TC, it's completely asinine to spend $500 or even $300 on one with a throw away drive. For the life of me, I can't imagine why Apple is willing to take the PR black eye on even more failures using a lower quality drive. What they should do (but won't) is to put a Thunderbolt port on the next version of the Airport Extreme, instead of the wimpy USB 2.0 port...
I think part of the problem is that Apple has a bad reputation for using slow speed hard drives of dubious build quality, especially in their entry level products. As a result, when I first saw this article I was thinking "Oh lord, what clunker did they put in now?" but it could be worse. Edit: I would expect 7200rpm at least in a server-grade hard drive.
I am also interested in hearing people's RAID choices. I have always been a fan of RAID1 mirroring, and selected that type whenever possible and have never regretted it.
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.
You do realize that a RAID one is striped and if it fails, you lose everything right? Your solution is no better than Apple's. You might want to read up on RAID and start with at least a RAID five.
Based on what? Can you provide some facts and experience to back up your claim? I'm not saying you are wrong, but when making public statements, generally proof is needed for credibility.
I would ignore his post. He clearly does not know what he is talking about.
I had a TC that went bad in just over a year. I had an extra Airport Extreme that I connected to USB HD as a substitute. It was not as power efficient and would not power down... plus made a lot of noise. Apple eventually replaced the TC. Now I use as the primary back-up, I back the TC periodically into another external USB that I turn off.
RAID are ok on paper. Except that I had RAID 5 in a Dell Server loose 2 drives in a weekend. Fortunately I had back ups for the critical info. It happened again overnight. I know Dell sells junk and it was a mid range unit. My next purchase was a HP rack mounted server with good RAID hardware. Plus I use off site auto back.
Even I had home it is essential to have some offsite back for important stuff like documents, photos, etc... even if it is to protect from robberies, floods, fires, etc.
I had something similar happen. I bought a Drobo as the main storage for all items. I use a WD ShareSpace or SpaceShare (get confused) as backup to the Drobo, and I just the TC as backup for Time Machine on all my Macs. If one or more Drobo drives fail, I can still recover data and it does not care about the mix and matching of drives. Going to upgrade to 3TB soon.
Anyone here who thinks WD Green drives, especially 1.5 TB and higher capacity, are "high quality" drives needs to go read the customer reviews on NewEgg. It's seems 1 in 4 is DOA.
"[Update] According to Western Digital, this disk is a general public model. There are also similar models for servers, but they are more expensive as they have a lower bit error rate 1x1015 while this one has 1x1014, 600,000 load/unload cycles (300,000 for this one) and is covered by a 5 years warranty, while this one is covered for 3 years."
So the only difference is byte errors and the warranty? What about reliability? Performance? Any difference? No? Well then!
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns
You do realize that a RAID one is striped and if it fails, you lose everything right? Your solution is no better than Apple's. You might want to read up on RAID and start with at least a RAID five.
Huh? RAID 1 is mirrored. That means if one drive fails, the RAID is rebuilt by the other drive. RAID 0 is striped. RAID 5 is the most common for performance with redundancy but needs at least 3 disks, RAID 1 needs only two.
The WD Green drives are of high quality. They are also energy efficient. This allows them to run cooler than a higher performance 7200 rpm drive like the scorpion series. Heat is the enemy of all electronics. Most "server class" hard drives are higher performance, but they are fan cooled. Most servers sound like jet engines.
I currently have a WD Dual 2t raid 1 NAS. It has been flawless for over two years. It is nearly silent. It does not need fans.
So, IMHO the green series is an excellent choice in the Time Capsule as the WiFi is currently not fast enough to make any use of the higher performance drives.
True. The only one higher is the Black drive in the Desktop world, but the Caviar Green is the only one that is up to 3TB size.
"[Update] According to Western Digital, this disk is a general public model. There are also similar models for servers, but they are more expensive as they have a lower bit error rate 1x1015 while this one has 1x1014, 600,000 load/unload cycles (300,000 for this one) and is covered by a 5 years warranty, while this one is covered for 3 years."
Quote:
Originally Posted by benanderson89
So the only difference is byte errors and the warranty? What about reliability? Performance? Any difference? No? Well then!
I would imagine reliability is different since that is evidenced by the different bit error rate and load/unload cycles. Thus, making it a "server grade" disk which is how Apple is marketing a BACKUP device.
Performance is not a pertinent issue here, since this is marketed as a wireless backup device, rather than fast external storage.
but they are still using the wrong term for it. If I sell a tyre that is stress tested to last 20 years and I get a blow-out after 2 years, it doesn't change the fact that under standard testing, it was deemed to last longer and designed to be durable.
Server-grade drives are designed to last longer, which is why they have a premium and Apple shouldn't call it a server-class drive if it's not.
But you're right that having a single backup drive makes it meaningless either way. They should at least have 2 drives in RAID1, even if it's 2 x 1.5TB 2.5".
Yep - my 4 Caviar Greens in Raid-5 are perfectly server grade, one on it's own, not so much.
Be careful running WD Greens in a RAID. You have to make sure you RAID driver can handle the long error recovery times on consumer drivers.
The old WD Greens you could simply download the TLER utility and change the setting in their firmware, but WD turned off that option in the newer drives.
Basically you should avoid consumer drives in RAID unless you really know what you're doing... else you run the risk of losing everything.
Comments
According to Western Digital, this disk is a general public model. There are also similar models for servers, but they are more expensive as they have a lower bit error rate 1x1015 while this one has 1x1014, 600,000 load/unload cycles (300,000 for this one) and is covered by a 5 years warranty, while this one is covered for 3 years."
Oh friggin boo hoo. One file in a series of backups will get corrupted because of a bit. You shouldn't be relying on one backup anyway if your information is THAT critical.
Did it ever occur to anyone that all WD drives are "server grade" and the differentiation is only for marketing purposes?
No, "home" and "server" disks are different
My web server has a fast raid of caviar blacks. My home server has a mirrored raid of caviar greens. I don't know if the greens can accurately be called "server-grade", but they make the most sense for a time capsule. Time capsules don't need high performance. They only need reliability and average performance. And using less power is always a nice bonus. As long as the greens prove to be reliable, they should be a great choice. Mine are probably a year or two old and I've had no issues.
exactly, there are no server grade drives...nowadays, with modern i/o, this drives are so good, and their mttf is so good, that server grade or not is beside the point.
EDIT: I'm not saying that WD Green is poor quality, just pointing out that it is not the server version of WD hard disks, hence not "server grade".
http://www.hardmac.com/news/2011/06/...ime-caspule-v4
"[Update] According to Western Digital, this disk is a general public model. There are also similar models for servers, but they are more expensive as they have a lower bit error rate 1x1015 while this one has 1x1014, 600,000 load/unload cycles (300,000 for this one) and is covered by a 5 years warranty, while this one is covered for 3 years."
That disk in the Time Capsule is NOT "server grade". Apple has a tendency for hyperbole but calling it "server grade" is in this case, a lie. I make this decision based on the statement by Western Digital reported by Hardmac.com that his is NOT the model of hard disks used for servers, hence it is not a "server grade" hard disk.
All kinds of companies do these kinds of things, but there is definitely change underfoot at Apple as it becomes more of a "mainstream" kind of company, if it isn't already.
With Steve unwell it is sad to me to see signs of lack of cohesiveness at Apple, my theme for the year. But all things change.
Flame away.
Obviously I am not going to flame you cause I respect your posting here, a lot, and I read your posts with care. But I think you are splitting hairs here. The hitachis they used to have in time capsule were not really server grade either, but tech is growing so fast, that last years "server grade" drives are shit compared to todays run of the mill drives. Apple is putting in the best prosumer devices in time capsule. Ok, they could have opted for server grade drives, charged 300 at least more, for a product that would be shit anyway in a year or so...and they are right to not do that, they are opting for the best prosumer drive now, to keep the costs down. Good enough, server enough, for me. Tech has advanced so much the lines are blurred.
*) I use them in my OWN Server (attached via iSCSI) for years now. I have a 6 TB (4x2TB) RAID-5 with critical Data, and a 5 TB (6x 1TB) RAID-5 Testbed. I re-created the Testbed more times than I can remember in the last 3 years, and no HDD failed me, ever. I can personally attest that these drives meet the needs of a TC perfectly.
*) A client of mine uses 9 of them for a 12 TB mission-critical Aperture-Library for 1,5 years by now, and not a single drive has failed me once.
*) Hardmac actually replaced the HDD for a WD Green one in this Guide, and wrote about the benefits it brings.
In short, the WD Caviar Green is the perfect choice for TC, stop complaining.
For WD, there are Green for Eco, Blue for normal and Black for speed. I would rate them highly.
Exactly. "Server grade" is a meaningless term. If you really want a robust backup server, then buy a backup system with at least RAID 5.
Bingo. Exactly my thoughts. It means nothing.
I am also interested in hearing people's RAID choices. I have always been a fan of RAID1 mirroring, and selected that type whenever possible and have never regretted it.
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.
You do realize that a RAID one is striped and if it fails, you lose everything right? Your solution is no better than Apple's. You might want to read up on RAID and start with at least a RAID five.
Based on what? Can you provide some facts and experience to back up your claim? I'm not saying you are wrong, but when making public statements, generally proof is needed for credibility.
I would ignore his post. He clearly does not know what he is talking about.
I had a TC that went bad in just over a year. I had an extra Airport Extreme that I connected to USB HD as a substitute. It was not as power efficient and would not power down... plus made a lot of noise. Apple eventually replaced the TC. Now I use as the primary back-up, I back the TC periodically into another external USB that I turn off.
RAID are ok on paper. Except that I had RAID 5 in a Dell Server loose 2 drives in a weekend. Fortunately I had back ups for the critical info. It happened again overnight. I know Dell sells junk and it was a mid range unit. My next purchase was a HP rack mounted server with good RAID hardware. Plus I use off site auto back.
Even I had home it is essential to have some offsite back for important stuff like documents, photos, etc... even if it is to protect from robberies, floods, fires, etc.
I had something similar happen. I bought a Drobo as the main storage for all items. I use a WD ShareSpace or SpaceShare (get confused) as backup to the Drobo, and I just the TC as backup for Time Machine on all my Macs. If one or more Drobo drives fail, I can still recover data and it does not care about the mix and matching of drives. Going to upgrade to 3TB soon.
Western Digital has stated to Hardmac.com that there are distinct differences:
http://www.hardmac.com/news/2011/06/...ime-caspule-v4
"[Update] According to Western Digital, this disk is a general public model. There are also similar models for servers, but they are more expensive as they have a lower bit error rate 1x1015 while this one has 1x1014, 600,000 load/unload cycles (300,000 for this one) and is covered by a 5 years warranty, while this one is covered for 3 years."
So the only difference is byte errors and the warranty? What about reliability? Performance? Any difference? No? Well then!
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.
You do realize that a RAID one is striped and if it fails, you lose everything right? Your solution is no better than Apple's. You might want to read up on RAID and start with at least a RAID five.
Huh? RAID 1 is mirrored. That means if one drive fails, the RAID is rebuilt by the other drive. RAID 0 is striped. RAID 5 is the most common for performance with redundancy but needs at least 3 disks, RAID 1 needs only two.
The WD Green drives are of high quality. They are also energy efficient. This allows them to run cooler than a higher performance 7200 rpm drive like the scorpion series. Heat is the enemy of all electronics. Most "server class" hard drives are higher performance, but they are fan cooled. Most servers sound like jet engines.
I currently have a WD Dual 2t raid 1 NAS. It has been flawless for over two years. It is nearly silent. It does not need fans.
So, IMHO the green series is an excellent choice in the Time Capsule as the WiFi is currently not fast enough to make any use of the higher performance drives.
True. The only one higher is the Black drive in the Desktop world, but the Caviar Green is the only one that is up to 3TB size.
Western Digital has stated to Hardmac.com that there are distinct differences:
http://www.hardmac.com/news/2011/06/...ime-caspule-v4
"[Update] According to Western Digital, this disk is a general public model. There are also similar models for servers, but they are more expensive as they have a lower bit error rate 1x1015 while this one has 1x1014, 600,000 load/unload cycles (300,000 for this one) and is covered by a 5 years warranty, while this one is covered for 3 years."
So the only difference is byte errors and the warranty? What about reliability? Performance? Any difference? No? Well then!
I would imagine reliability is different since that is evidenced by the different bit error rate and load/unload cycles. Thus, making it a "server grade" disk which is how Apple is marketing a BACKUP device.
Performance is not a pertinent issue here, since this is marketed as a wireless backup device, rather than fast external storage.
Exactly. "Server grade" is a meaningless term. If you really want a robust backup server, then buy a backup system with at least RAID 5.
True, any drive can fail at any time no matter the brand or estimated MTBF:
http://www.dailytech.com/Study+Hard+...rticle6404.htm
but they are still using the wrong term for it. If I sell a tyre that is stress tested to last 20 years and I get a blow-out after 2 years, it doesn't change the fact that under standard testing, it was deemed to last longer and designed to be durable.
Server-grade drives are designed to last longer, which is why they have a premium and Apple shouldn't call it a server-class drive if it's not.
But you're right that having a single backup drive makes it meaningless either way. They should at least have 2 drives in RAID1, even if it's 2 x 1.5TB 2.5".
Yep - my 4 Caviar Greens in Raid-5 are perfectly server grade, one on it's own, not so much.
Be careful running WD Greens in a RAID. You have to make sure you RAID driver can handle the long error recovery times on consumer drivers.
The old WD Greens you could simply download the TLER utility and change the setting in their firmware, but WD turned off that option in the newer drives.
Basically you should avoid consumer drives in RAID unless you really know what you're doing... else you run the risk of losing everything.