WD Green Drives no good for QNAP's??

[mlynchit]

WD Green ARE NOT WORTH THE RISK

I have a failing WD20EARS right here in my desktop, I pulled it out of my qnap: "Active Hard Disk Monitor" reports it as all %100, except for an %80 spin up time.

My system drive, a seagate 2.5", reports an honest reading of 70 percent on read error rates and seek error rates.

This WD Green 2TB reports NO ISSUES. (And therefore the qnap also thought it fine. I had to log into ssh and run dmesg to discover the read errors)

DO NOT BOTHER WITH WD GREEN DRIVES.

Edit: Heckm dont even use one in your desktop, or external!! They are simply no good!!

[pedro]

I'll put my bit in here too. I run a TS-239 Pro II+ with 2 x 2 TB HDDs in RAID1. The HDDs in question are WD Green (WD20EARX-00PASB051.0). I'm running the 3.6.0 Build0210 firmware.

After 450 POH, I have ~5500-5800 LCC. This means I have a further 2.75 years of 24/7 use before I reach the 300 000 LCC mark.

My usage is perhaps a little odd. The NAS is rarely on. I've had it almost 8 months yet it's only been on for 450 hours. It gets switched on, loaded up with new stuff, then switched off, more or less. This has suited me thus far, but it would be nice to be able to leave it on all the time and not have a niggling concern that something is going badly wrong in there because the HDDs don't mix well with Linux.

I'm not particularly concerned that LLC levels will get very high or even if they did that they would be such an issue. But the possible TLER problems with these 'non-enterprise' HDDs does worry me a little.

Anyway, I thought I'd just put this into the mix because ~300 LCC/day does seem quite high to me.

[mangrove]

Well, I just finished data recovery for a friend with a TS-410. This unit, having four WD15EARS drives in a RAID5, came to me with two drives having read errors, and of course they had dropped out of the array. I tried my damndest to recreate the MDRAID in Linux, but with the read errors it was impossible to recreate the array, and if forcing the array I had no file system -- and when FSCKing the file system the drives of course dropped again. Quite a pickle.

I managed to get all his data back using third party tools. During the recovery, a THIRD drive developed the same errors..! Now he has one drive left, and that one has seen 364166 head parkings. Any bets on life left in it?

My experience have effectively scared me off WD Green drives -- at least for NAS use -- even if I'm normally a WD guy! The new Red disks look good though, even if I have not seen info about their parking habits...

[rboerdijk]

For fun:

WDC WD10EACS-00ZJB0 (disk 1)

ID Description Value Worst Value Threshold Raw value Status
1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 200 200 051 0 OK
3 Spin_Up_Time 182 052 021 7875 OK
4 Start_Stop_Count 045 045 000 55282 OK
5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 200 200 140 0 OK
7 Seek_Error_Rate 100 253 051 0 OK
9 Power_On_Hours 037 037 000 46590 OK
10 Spin_Retry_Count 100 100 051 0 OK
11 Calibration_Retry_Count 100 253 051 0 OK
12 Power_Cycle_Count 100 100 000 35 OK
192 Power-Off_Retract_Count 200 200 000 36 OK
193 Load_Cycle_Count 001 001 000 605617 OK
194 Temperature_Celsius 118 100 000 34 OK
196 Reallocated_Event_Count 200 200 000 0 OK
197 Current_Pending_Sector 200 200 000 4 OK
198 Offline_Uncorrectable 200 200 000 0 OK
199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count 200 200 000 0 OK
200 Multi_Zone_Error_Rate 199 194 051 122 OK

WDC WD10EACS-00ZJB0 (disk 2)

ID Description Value Worst Value Threshold Raw value Status
1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 200 200 051 0 OK
3 Spin_Up_Time 184 182 021 7783 OK
4 Start_Stop_Count 048 048 000 52941 OK
5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 200 200 140 0 OK
7 Seek_Error_Rate 100 253 051 0 OK
9 Power_On_Hours 039 039 000 44921 OK
10 Spin_Retry_Count 100 100 051 0 OK
11 Calibration_Retry_Count 100 253 051 0 OK
12 Power_Cycle_Count 100 100 000 25 OK
192 Power-Off_Retract_Count 200 200 000 22 OK
193 Load_Cycle_Count 004 004 000 589153 OK
194 Temperature_Celsius 118 100 000 34 OK
196 Reallocated_Event_Count 200 200 000 0 OK
197 Current_Pending_Sector 200 200 000 0 OK
198 Offline_Uncorrectable 200 200 000 0 OK
199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count 200 200 000 0 OK
200 Multi_Zone_Error_Rate 200 200 051 0 OK

Running pretty smooths for around 5 years 24/7 inside my TS-209.
It's about to be replaced with my TS-410 anytime soon now ^^

[weamdebest]

Every single WD green caviar I have seen someone use, has died 6 to 12 months after purchase.
I would avoid green caviar like the plague.

Also, the fact that WD Red is based on green technically, makes me cautiously weary of them. I want to see some good solid years of performance before I'd even consider getting them.

[P3R]

Also, the fact that WD Red is based on green technically, makes me cautiously weary of them. I want to see some good solid years of performance before I'd even consider getting them.

I would avoid using any WD desktop disk in a NAS/RAID-application considering the WD statement on recommended usage: Desktop drives are not recommended for use in RAID environments...

With all other WD desktop disks out of the question for the above reason and with the experiences reported from users of later Seagate models, we're running out of alternatives here. I guess Toshiba (Hitachi) is the answer but I'm willing to try WD Red to have a second source.

Of course you are correct in that the longetivity of WD Red is yet to be determined but if your fear about them being correct, at least the 3 year warranty feels assuring.

Currently seeing 6531 power on hours on my WD Red, so about halfway into the time span when you claim all WD Green disks will have failed...

[rboerdijk]

Currently seeing 6531 power on hours on my WD Red, so about halfway into the time span when you claim all WD Green disks will have failed..

I wouldn't worry too much yet, my greens have power-on-hours = 46590 = 1941 days = 5.3 years - and still running ^^
Compared with my other NAS, with 4 x 2 TB samsungs the samsungs smart-values look way worse (esp. in raw-error count and multizone error rate).

Probably going with Hitachi in my next nas (mainly because WD red doesn't have 4 TB drives ).

[schumaku]

I wouldn't worry too much yet, my greens have power-on-hours = 46590 = 1941 days = 5.3 years - and still running ^^

Bad reference. On one hand, based on a lot of luck [when I see the sectors pending and more...]. On the other hand, this generation of WD Green had the options to disable deep error recovery.

Probably going with Hitachi in my next nas (mainly because WD red doesn't have 4 TB drives ).

All manufacturers will launch 4 GB (and most likely 5 TB [tree platters, five surfaces]) later this year.

[shake-the-disease]

As the opening poster of this thread I thought I should return and report my experience. After buying a WD green drive for my TS-239 it lasted a total of ~6 months before failing, luckily by that stage it was in Raid-1 so I didn't lose any data. I haven't bought a WD green drive since

[badbob]

I'm using two WDC WD10EACS-00ZJB0 drives

I also have a DNS-323 with two Samsung 500GB drives, I'm considering removing the 500's, using them as backup, then purchasing one new drive. If the WD green aren't suitable for Qnap, I could move the WD to the DNS-323 then buy a new drive for the Qnap. I have installed ALT F firmware on the the DNS-323 so it will support the 1.5TB drives.

SMART report from Qnap

1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 200 200 051 0 OK
3 Spin_Up_Time 182 175 021 7891 OK
4 Start_Stop_Count 099 099 000 1398 OK
5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 200 200 140 0 OK
7 Seek_Error_Rate 100 253 051 0 OK
9 Power_On_Hours 090 090 000 7850 OK
10 Spin_Retry_Count 100 100 051 0 OK
11 Calibration_Retry_Count 100 100 051 0 OK
12 Power_Cycle_Count 100 100 000 704 OK
192 Power-Off_Retract_Count 200 200 000 695 OK
193 Load_Cycle_Count 146 146 000 164897 OK
194 Temperature_Celsius 127 108 000 25 OK
196 Reallocated_Event_Count 200 200 000 0 OK
197 Current_Pending_Sector 200 200 000 0 OK
198 Offline_Uncorrectable 200 200 000 0 OK
199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count 200 200 000 0 OK
200 Multi_Zone_Error_Rate 200 200 051 0 OK

1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 200 200 051 0 OK
3 Spin_Up_Time 185 182 021 7741 OK
4 Start_Stop_Count 099 099 000 1421 OK
5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 200 200 140 0 OK
7 Seek_Error_Rate 100 253 051 0 OK
9 Power_On_Hours 090 090 000 7845 OK
10 Spin_Retry_Count 100 100 051 0 OK
11 Calibration_Retry_Count 100 100 051 0 OK
12 Power_Cycle_Count 100 100 000 704 OK
192 Power-Off_Retract_Count 200 200 000 695 OK
193 Load_Cycle_Count 153 153 000 141675 OK
194 Temperature_Celsius 127 108 000 25 OK
196 Reallocated_Event_Count 200 200 000 0 OK
197 Current_Pending_Sector 200 200 000 0 OK
198 Offline_Uncorrectable 200 200 000 0 OK
199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count 200 200 000 0 OK
200 Multi_Zone_Error_Rate 200 200 051 0 OK

[pwilson]

Important: The article below compares the differences between Western Digital Desktop edition (WD Blue, WD Green and WD Black) drives and our Enterprise (WD RE and Velociraptors). This article does not apply to WD Red drives which are designed specifically to be used in a NAS enclosure.

Western Digital manufactures desktop edition hard drives and RAID Edition (RE) hard drives. Each type of hard drive is designed to work specifically as a stand-alone drive, or in a multi-drive RAID environment.

If you install and use a desktop edition hard drive connected to a RAID controller, the drive may not work correctly. This is caused by the normal error recovery procedure that a desktop edition hard drive uses.

When an error is found on a desktop edition hard drive, the drive will enter into a deep recovery cycle to attempt to repair the error, recover the data from the problematic area, and then reallocate a dedicated area to replace the problematic area. This process can take up to 2 minutes depending on the severity of the issue. Most RAID controllers allow a very short amount of time for a hard drive to recover from an error. If a hard drive takes too long to complete this process, the drive will be dropped from the RAID array. Most RAID controllers allow from 7 to 15 seconds for error recovery before dropping a hard drive from an array. Western Digital does not recommend installing desktop edition hard drives in an enterprise environment (on a RAID controller).

Western Digital RAID edition hard drives have a feature called TLER (Time Limited Error Recovery) which stops the hard drive from entering into a deep recovery cycle. The hard drive will only spend 7 seconds to attempt to recover. This means that the hard drive will not be dropped from a RAID array. While TLER is designed for RAID environments, a drive with TLER enabled will work with no performance decrease when used in non-RAID environments.

Critical: WD Black, WD Green, and WD Blue hard drives are not recommended for and are not warranted for use in RAID environments utilizing Enterprise HBAs and/or expanders and in multi-bay chassis, as they are not designed for, nor tested in, these specific types of RAID applications. For all Business Critical RAID applications, please consider WD’s Enterprise Hard Drives that are specifically designed with RAID-specific, time-limited error recovery (TLER), are tested extensively in 24x7 RAID applications, and include features like enhanced RAFF technology and thermal extended burn-in testing.

Neither the NAS Manufacturer (QNAP), nor the HDD Manufacturer (Western Digital Corporation) recommend using these drives in your NAS. Heed the advice of both the NAS Manufacturer and the Drive Manufacturer when it comes to using "recommended" drives. Attempting to use "non-recommended" drives in your NAS is a recipe for disaster!

Please consider upgrading to Western Digital's NASWare Reds, which are specifically designed especially for use in NAS RAID enclosures.



Check out Western Digitals Marketing document: WD NASware Drives

This thread has gone on too long. Western Digital even admits that their Green Desktop drives are not suitable for RAID use. Why is this thread still going?

[fantomas]

If the WD green aren't suitable for Qnap, I could move the WD to the DNS-323 then buy a new drive for the Qnap.

IT's not the "WD green aren't suitable for Qnap". It's WD Green unsuitable in any case it will be permanently used. They are for use as secondary disks containing videos, backups and where they will be turned off for most of the time.
You can configure them with WD3IDLE utility to stop it from being turned off after every 8 seconds of inactivity. However it still won't be usable in these cases.

[umpa]

Very Old Thread I know.

Just for clarity and to be fair on all sides.........

WD ShareSpace & MybookWorld (White Light Edition) as well as the MyBookWorld II (White Light Edition) ALL use Green Caviar drives, in fact they are crippled to ONLY use these drives. Now all these NAS' are a pile of steaming doggy do when it comes to features and speed, however thats not the issue here I feel that what the manufacturer has said is that don't use our green drives in YOUR nas if its not one of ours.

Lets face it - they are hardly going to fit a 'not suitable' for nas drive in their own NAS now are they ?

Now for the record yes I have had these drives fail, but not in a QNAP and they failed as a result of vibration (user error).

Heres a pic of one of my TS-412s look at the power on hours, and this is a file server serving many computers and laptops & tablets.





Thats two and a half years always on, and there has been occasion where I have had to power them off for a while.

edit ;

That should read 2.5 years worthh of all ways on - yes I know time has no 'worth' its just an Americanism

[schumaku]

they are hardly going to fit a 'not suitable' for nas drive in their own NAS now are they ?

Well, they did. One one hand, we don't know what nice mods or config changes they applied to the factory installed Green. On the other hand, WD must have had good reasons to launch the WD Red series and start deploy these drives to their newer NAS models.

As long g as nothing or not to much goes wrong on the WD Green they perform like any other drive. Convinced there are HDD (any brand and model) perform normal, without massive needs for deep error recovery - so they will work on any NAS.

[kiwijunglist]

It's very clear from this thread that WD Greens for a RAID are a terrible idea.

What do people think about using a 4x WD Green in a TS-410 in basic mode (ie not RAID or JBOD), for completely static data that will be very very infrequently accessed?

I have an htpc, has lots of WD Green drives in it, I've run out of room so need to move the drives out into a DAS or NAS. I'm looking at buying a cheap QNAP TS-410. The drives will be used to store large movies/tv series. I will never write to the drives as they are already full. The movies/tv series will be very infrequently accessed by the single htpc.

Will the linux file system on the QNAP still ping the drives every 8 seconds if they are not in a RAID/JBOD?

I have the following question that I couldn't see answered in this thread:

Thanks
Kiwi