I Bought WD 4TB Red Drives (Chap. 1 of a Long Story)

Printers, HDDs, USB/eSATA drives, 3rd-party programs

WD Red Drives, What I Actually Observed (Chap. 3)

Postby GoetzVonBerlichingen » Thu Feb 06, 2014 6:03 am

If you've made it this far ...

... you won't be surprised that I decided to purchase seven 4TB WD Red drives. Six would be used to populate the turbo-station itself, and the seventh would be a cold spare. I ended up purchasing the drives from Amazon, mostly because of the reports of lousy packaging at NewEgg.

The drives arrived in an unblemished outer box; the contents would shift when I shook the package. Inside the shipping carton were the seven individual drive boxes and several of the little air bags to occupy the empty space. Some settling had apparently occurred, but the drive boxes were all pristine.

    (20-20 hindsight. I should've purchased 8 drives. The shipping carton seemed to have been designed specially to hold 8 of the drive boxes, and had I ordered 8, the contents would not have shifted at all during shipping.)
The individual drive-boxes were typical of Amazon's 'frustration free' close-the-lid-insert-side-tabs packaging, albeit unbranded. Inside each box was a single drive, suspended in plastic clam-shells at either end. For some reason the drive boxes exuded a floral scent, almost as if they'd been stored next to a stack of those softener sheets for the dryer ... which was a little strange.

Here's the identifying information for these first seven drives.

Image

The right-most column displays the drives' idle3 value (that initially was misconfigured by WD ... as reported here in the QNAP forums and elsewhere). I used the Ultimate Boot CD (UBCD) to get this value. It contains v1.05 of the WDIDLE3.EXE and v5.20 of the DLGDIAG.EXE utilities. I tested each drive individually, connecting the HD to the same motherboard SATA port in turn. Whether it's the MB of the PC (an HP 6005 Pro MT) or the processor (AMD Phenom II X4 B95), the utility seemed to not be able to report the wdidle3 value (I presume) after the value had already been set to 'disabled.' The one drive that listed a value when queried -- it reported 300 -- indicates that the utility was working. Further, after I set this drive's value to 'disabled', power-cycled the machine, and then queried the drive, nothing was reported ... like the balance of these drives.

    (20-20 hindsight. I was lucky that I tested first, the only drive that reported a wdidle3 value. Otherwise I would've spent more time trying to create a bootable CD with v2.0 of the WDIDLE3 utility, which I downloaded from johnripper's post in one of the other threads. I spent several hours following the 'cookbook' for customizing the UBCD, but had no success ... so far. It's on my list of projects to pursue when I've got the time.)

The following table contains the results of the WD Data Lifeguard Diagnostics for DOS (DLGDIAG.EXE) Quick Test. These values were all harvested after restarting the PC (having completed using the idle3 utility), and then selecting the "Quick Test" option:

Image

The following table contains the results of the DLGDIAG.EXE Extended Test. These values were all harvested after restarting the PC (having completed using the earlier Quick Test), and then selecting the "Extended Test" option. In all cases the time reported for the "Quick Test" (which runs automatically prior to the Extended Test) was the same as reported above.

Image

The table says it all. Three of the seven drives did not complete the Extended Test. I called WD customer service, and was counseled to return the drives to the seller for an exchange. (The CS Rep was honest about doing a warranty exchange with WD -- and getting back re-certified drives -- and recommended the vendor exchange.) Prior to sending the drives back to Amazon, I ran the Extended Test on two of the 'bad' drives again. One of the drives completed the test successfully; the other failed again, this time about six hours into the test. I suspect that the program hangs when it identifies -- and marks/remaps -- a bad sector, as both of these re-tested drives sailed by the original stopping point.

No worries. Amazon's return procedures for defective products are straightforward enough. (I included a description of the Extended Test failure point in each box.)

After sending in the drives to be exchanged, I then started the long process of putting the turbo-station back into service using the four 'good' drives ... installing one drive first (under FW 3.8.1 that I had been running), then updating the FW to 4.0.3 (2013/09/12) automatically via the prompt in the QNAP web app. After validating successful operation, I added the other three drives, and started building a RAID6 volume ... to which I'd add two more drives once they arrived from Amazon.

To recap, of the seven drives I originally ordered, three had to be exchanged based on WD's recommendation. When I got the three newly exchanged drives, their packaging was slightly different. This time the boxes containing the drives were standard, fold-flaps-to-close boxes that were sealed with a large WD identification sticker and tape. The same clam-shell packaging inside, however.

The identifying information for the exchanged drives is provided in the table below. Of note, perhaps, is the fact that the drive dated 26 Nov 2013 did not have the anticipated "8 sec" (or other) wdidle3 value ... and that one of the 18 Jan 2014 drives setting was "300 sec". A recurring theme in the forum's discussions of WD 4TB Red drives and LCC/idle3 matters, is that there seems to be no consistent, constant pattern. Although the problem appears to be going away.

    (With more data ... hint, hint to the reader :wink: ... maybe a pattern or two would emerge.)

Image

Here are the test results for the three exchanged drives. Two are in the turbo-station now, and the third is ready to replace one of the drives when necessary.

Image

------------------------------------------

Wrapping up this story ...

After researching the drives -- which took considerable time -- I decided to document some of what I went through for others' potential benefit. If you decide to purchase WD 4TB Red drives, based on your operational requirements and your environment, I recommend that you:

    Check the drives' idle3 setting. Set it to disabled if not already so.

    Do not place the drive into service if it does not pass the Data Lifeguard Extended Test. Rather exchange it at the seller for a different, brand-new disk.

    Keep a record of all of the drives' identifying information for possible retrospective analysis.

And if you post a copy of the anonymized drive information here, as well as any unique behaviors/factors, maybe a pattern will emerge. The 'hive' can accomplish things that we, as individuals, could never accomplish.

Thanks for reading these posts.
1. Operating System used to access the NAS: Windows 7 SP1 (Firefox v.24.0)
2. NAS model: TS-659 Pro+
3. Firmware revision: TS-659_20130912-4.0.3
4. Network Setup: Single Port
5. Drive Configuration: RAID5 (18.5TB)
6. Installed drives: 6 EA --> WD40EFRX-68WT0N080.0
GoetzVonBerlichingen
Know my way around
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 11:14 pm
NAS Model: TS-659 Pro+

Re: I Bought WD 4TB Red Drives (Chap. 1 of a Long Story)

Postby scubajwd » Sat Feb 08, 2014 11:19 pm

Thank You for all your effort on this; I did read end to end your WD 4TB Red Trilogy as it were;
I just bought a WD 4TB "Red:" drive a few days back and have it in "single disk" test mode
in one of my file servers before I replace all 8 in my two newer Qnap file servers
Please keep the community posted if any of your new "reds" drop out..BTW, I'm running
4.0.5 on all my boxes and keep them as cool as possible in my server room
TS-269 Pro
TS-639
scubajwd
Starting out
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Las Vegas NV
NAS Model: TS-509 Pro

Re: I Bought WD 4TB Red Drives (Chap. 1 of a Long Story)

Postby GoetzVonBerlichingen » Sun Feb 09, 2014 10:11 am

scubajwd wrote:I just bought a WD 4TB "Red:" drive a few days back and have it in "single disk" test mode
in one of my file servers before I replace all 8 in my two newer Qnap file servers

As long as this thread remains writable, I shall provide updates regarding these drives ... hopefully it'll be a long time before I have to add anything.

Should you opt to replace your drives with 4TB Red drives across the board, feel free to describe the drives herein for others' benefit. :wink:

If you instead purchase Seagate, Hitachi, or other brand ...

... well I'd be very interested to learn of your rationale and experience in another drive-specific thread ...

... to which I hope you'd provide a link.
GoetzVonBerlichingen
Know my way around
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 11:14 pm
NAS Model: TS-659 Pro+

Re: I Bought WD 4TB Red Drives (Chap. 1 of a Long Story)

Postby Briain » Sun Feb 09, 2014 7:41 pm

Hi

Interesting read! :)

Several years ago, I tried doing some research before buying a batch of disks (6 for me and another 8 for a customer) and found it difficult to obtain any real information about the differences between desktop and enterprise grade disks. I eventually opted for Samsung HE103 (1 TB enterprise disks) based on my great experience with the desktop variants I'd fitted to various NAS units (including my own ReadyNAS NV+). After asking a few questions via emails to Samsung, I was quite surprised when a Samsung engineer called me one day, and even more surprised to hear he was based in Edinburgh and thus only about 5 miles away! One question I asked was a out the weight difference quoted for the two disks which - from memory - was about 10 grams; I asked if this was down to enhanced mechanics and he indicated that was his understanding, but at the time, he couldn't obtain any written information to back that up (these were quite new at the time). Anyhow, we had an interesting chat and debated a few issues, but I suspect that with all disk manufactureres, the full information never escapes the design and testing departments due to the fierce competition between the various vendors.

In general, one thing I often wondered was whether enterprise disks applied more energy to reduce seek times (which I've always thought would make sense; lots of corporate customers demanding small files scattered across a disk would require the head to swiftly move to different parts of the platters) and when I read your post, I was wondering if that could have an impact on wear and thus be a contributing factor in the difference between load/unload count failure statistics between WD Red and WD SE disks (SE being fed higher currents and the head mechanism experiencing greater acceleration stresses), but that the WD RE shows 600,000 would kibosh that line of thinking unless they've specifically engineered that model to cope better than the others. Of course, there are no clues in the specifications (and the seek noise for all three is 3 dB above ambient noise, but that doesn't tell us anything useful as a small increase in acceleration performance might not make that much more noise).

It would be great (and extremely interesting) if the disk manufacturers released white papers explaining the differences between the models and their thinking behind many aspects of the design, but as I alluded to above, my suspicion is that the disk manufacturers have always operated in a culture of corporate secrecy and release the very minimum of information that they are obliged to release. If anything, it looks as though this is getting worse rather than better as specification sheets are 'dumbed down' into little more than you'd expect to see from a press release of an as yet unreleased new product.

Back to the Samsung disks and all these 14 disks I installed a few years ago are still going strong. 4 of my ones have been sitting in a TS-659 (my music server Qnap) and I've still two spares sitting in their boxes. Now that disks are available in such large capacities, I'm pondering moving from a RAID 6 Intel based NAS to one of the current ARM Qnaps with two good disks in RAID 1 (and leaving them spinning 24/7). I have always been weary of WD since the Green/Black/Blue issues (and have trust issues after reading the explanations given by WD) but having fitted a good few WD Red disks to customer Qnaps, I've been quite impressed. That said, this load unload issue (and the issue with disks being set with different parameters) makes me wonder if they're quite as trustworthy as they could be. I plan to look closely at the specs for the desktop and enterprise Hitachi disks before taking a decision, but it seems there are very few negative posts about these disks, so either almost nobody is using them, or they are just very good.

Bri

NB Sorry for any major typos; at the moment, I've no time to proof read the above ramblings and will thus have to do so later (and knowing me, there will be a good few). :ashamed: :D
User avatar
Briain
Experience counts
 
Posts: 1312
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 11:56 pm
Location: Edinburgh (Scotland)
NAS Model: TS-659 Pro

Re: I Bought WD 4TB Red Drives (Chap. 1 of a Long Story)

Postby SpankyMcS » Thu Feb 13, 2014 2:55 pm

Hi, great analysis, thanx for your time...

Following the links for WDIdle3 I found that it was for the RE2-GP drives, so further looking found http://support.wd.com/product/download. ... 01&lang=en which is for the WD Red ie WD40EFRX drives.
I have downloaded but not run yet to test.

Again thanx for the insights :)

Spanky
SpankyMcS
First post
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 12:43 pm
NAS Model: TS-412

Re: I Bought WD 4TB Red Drives (Chap. 1 of a Long Story)

Postby itsmarcos » Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:58 pm

Hi - many thanks for sharing your analysis and the excellent and clear write-up.

Your analysis helped me dismiss the purchase of an Se drive. Although, the specs and the warranty are appealing the heat issue held back my decision. Your post definitely sealed the case. The NAS I wanted to install it is not in a properly ventilated room where the ambient temperature might rise upto 40 degrees during summer.

Still skeptical though on the quality of the REDs - might go for a HGST NAS drive (specs)
QNAP TS-219 P+ [4.1.1 Build 20140927]
- disk 1: HGST Deskstar 7K3000 HDS723030ALA640 3TB
- disk 2: WDC Red WD40EFRX
User avatar
itsmarcos
Know my way around
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 5:34 am
NAS Model: TS-219P+

Re: I Bought WD 4TB Red Drives (Chap. 1 of a Long Story)

Postby ihartley » Thu Feb 13, 2014 6:58 pm

I think you mde a number of errors:
1. SE drives are probably placed in different environments than other drives, so their "known failure rate" might be very different
2. You bought all of your drives from one batch/supplier, which significantly skews any statistics
3. Unlikely shipping caused an issue - drives are designed to stand xxxG whilst running, let alone parked

I DO value your posts. But in reality, and backed by a Google study, drives just, er, well, fail. Buy REDs if you want for extended warranty (I would). But don't expect magic from them. The fixing and torque of the screw is probably just as important as whether it's 10^14 or 10^ error.
ihartley
Know my way around
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 4:48 am
NAS Model: TS-419P+

Re: I Bought WD 4TB Red Drives (Chap. 1 of a Long Story)

Postby GoetzVonBerlichingen » Thu Feb 13, 2014 8:10 pm

SpankyMcS wrote:... found http://support.wd.com/product/download. ... 01&lang=en which is for the WD Red ie WD40EFRX drives.
I have downloaded but not run yet to test.

I would be interested in learning the results of your testing ... including what is actually displayed when the utility is run. (This question has been posed in other WD 4TB threads here in the community.) WD's description ...

This utility modifies the behavior of the drive to wait longer before positioning the heads in their park position and turning off unnecessary electronics.

... borders on being useless. Furthermore, purchasers report that drives manufactured after the initial debacle have an idle3 value of "8 sec", "300 sec", or "disabled". The wording in WD's description implies that some sort of "longer" value will be set ... the longest of which can only be "300 sec" (as described by WD). If the idle3 value is already set at 300, how can this value be made longer?

    (I believe this value is inappropriately low for a NAS system that controls drive behavior on its own. Then again, I'm not smart enough to understand the difference between the internal forces at play if a WD drive is installed in a 5-bay NAS cabinet instead of a 6-bay cabinet.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And if you'll pardon a slight tangent ...

... What's up with WD providing S/W needing physical access to their drives in any format other than a bootable CD-ISO? WD's KB contains (or contained, when I was looking) pages that provided links to a v1.05 WDIDLE3.EXE as a bootable ISO. (None of the links worked.) I am very leery of running S/W that has the requisite privileges to update a drive's F/W while my (carefully configured) operating system is also attached to the PC. All the more so when WD doesn't say squat about what the new utility does ... nor how it reacts if multiple WD drives (or 4TB Red drives) are concurrently attached to the PC's controller when the utility does its (indescribable) magic.

Eventually I'll figure out how to supplement the UBCD with all of the relevant WD utilities. (I've used the UBCD a lot in the past, so I'm comfortable with it. Others have reported success with other approaches, that represent alternatives for me.) The question remains, however, why should customers have to deal with this? When I was responsible for a number of test machines in a lab environment, disk-test- and memory-test-utilities were always provided by the vendor as bootable ISOs (vendors as diverse as HP, Dell, and Lenovo).

WD has the engineering talent in-house to produce single-purpose, bootable CD ISOs for each of the WD utilities requiring physical-level access to a drive ... and the requisite support staff to author meaningful descriptions of what the utility is intended to do, and how it should be used.

Here's a sample of such a utility the vendor provides as a bootable CD ISO :

Here's a sample of documentation that should be available to assist users of the utilities like that above :

This is starting to resemble a pattern.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll reiterate that my trust in things WD has changed based on the experience I described above. (For those that may be interested, WD closed the first of my CS incidents. It had been almost one month since I submitted the request form. Maybe I'll have more luck with the second request, that appears to still be open.)
GoetzVonBerlichingen
Know my way around
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 11:14 pm
NAS Model: TS-659 Pro+

Re: I Bought WD 4TB Red Drives (Chap. 1 of a Long Story)

Postby aeonf242 » Fri Feb 14, 2014 6:33 am

I've been trying to get a couple of NAS's drives working with WD red 4TB and have failed each time.
I'm currently trying to get them to be recognised by a TS269L with no success!
aeonf242
First post
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 5:52 am
NAS Model: TS-x69L

Re: I Bought WD 4TB Red Drives (Chap. 1 of a Long Story)

Postby psikey » Fri Feb 14, 2014 5:04 pm

I've had 4 x 3TB Red's in my TS-469Pro and now using 4 x 4TB Red's in it. I had one of the 4TB Red's fail early on which was replaced within 5 days by WD (replacement came with a white label, not having the RED coloured section) and no problems since. My 4TB RED's did all come from one retailer but were purchased over a 3 month period.
psikey
Easy as a breeze
 
Posts: 495
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:36 pm
Location: UK
NAS Model: TS-x70 Pro

Re: I Bought WD 4TB Red Drives (Chap. 1 of a Long Story)

Postby ToreBK » Thu Mar 27, 2014 7:08 am

Thank you so much for your hard work, good thinking and this kind gesture of sharing your thoughts with the community. I not only read your WD40EFRX Trilogy with great interest, I even found it quite entertaining!

As I indicated in this QNAP Forum post, I too had some problems accepting WD's recommended limitations for Red's on more than 5-bays NAS boxes. It just didn't make sense to me, although I didn't think it through nearly as much as you obviously have!

I'm about to purchase yet another 8-bay NAS, and I will populate it with the WD50EFRX which now apparantly is delayed until 2Q14. I'm just hoping I will not have the same nightmare experience I had when 5 of 20 WD30EFRX failed on TS-869 Pro :shock:
TBK-NAS1: QNAP TS-419P+ QTS 4.1.1 Build 20141003 (4 x 3 TB Seagate Barracuda XT ST33000651AS) RAID10
TBK-NAS2: QNAP TS-869 Pro 3 GB RAM QTS 4.1.1 Build 20141003 (8 x 3 TB Western Digital Red WD30EFRX) RAID10
TBK-NAS3: QNAP TS-869 Pro 3 GB RAM QTS 4.1.1 Build 20141003 (8 x 3 TB Western Digital Red WD30EFRX) RAID10
TBK-NAS4: QNAP TS-EC1080 Pro QTS 4.1.1 Build 20141003 (10 x 6 TB Western Digital Red WD60EFRX) RAID10
External Disks: 2 x STBV3000200 Seagate® Expansion Desktop 3TB USB 3.0 Drives
UPS: 4 x PowerWalker VI 850 LCD Line-Interactive UPS
Spare Drives (cold): 2 x Western Digital Red WD30EFRX + 1 x Western Digital Red WD60EFRX
Serving: My Home Cinema
User avatar
ToreBK
Starting out
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2013 6:45 am
Location: NORWAY
NAS Model: TS-ECx80 Pro

Re: I Bought WD 4TB Red Drives (Chap. 1 of a Long Story)

Postby ToreBK » Tue Aug 19, 2014 6:40 am

How are those REDs holding up? I'm considering QNAP TS-EC1080 Pro 10-Bay with WD60EFRX, I wonder if you could be forum's Guinea-pig? :)
TBK-NAS1: QNAP TS-419P+ QTS 4.1.1 Build 20141003 (4 x 3 TB Seagate Barracuda XT ST33000651AS) RAID10
TBK-NAS2: QNAP TS-869 Pro 3 GB RAM QTS 4.1.1 Build 20141003 (8 x 3 TB Western Digital Red WD30EFRX) RAID10
TBK-NAS3: QNAP TS-869 Pro 3 GB RAM QTS 4.1.1 Build 20141003 (8 x 3 TB Western Digital Red WD30EFRX) RAID10
TBK-NAS4: QNAP TS-EC1080 Pro QTS 4.1.1 Build 20141003 (10 x 6 TB Western Digital Red WD60EFRX) RAID10
External Disks: 2 x STBV3000200 Seagate® Expansion Desktop 3TB USB 3.0 Drives
UPS: 4 x PowerWalker VI 850 LCD Line-Interactive UPS
Spare Drives (cold): 2 x Western Digital Red WD30EFRX + 1 x Western Digital Red WD60EFRX
Serving: My Home Cinema
User avatar
ToreBK
Starting out
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2013 6:45 am
Location: NORWAY
NAS Model: TS-ECx80 Pro

Re: I Bought WD 4TB Red Drives (Chap. 1 of a Long Story)

Postby schumaku » Tue Aug 19, 2014 5:12 pm

GoetzVonBerlichingen wrote:... What's up with WD providing S/W needing physical access to their drives in any format other than a bootable CD-ISO?


Look here, they do since last year -> http://support.wdc.com/product/download.asp?groupid=619&sid=201&lang=en

The Linux 32-bit build of the WD5741 Version 1 utility does run on for me on a TS-x69, copy to a share, and make it executable:

[/share/Public] # chmod 777 wd5741x32

List the drives:

[/share/Public] # ./wd5741x32 -d?
or
[/share/Public] # ./wd5741x32

Apply the update to disk N -> wd5741x32 -dN

[/share/Public] # ./wd5741x32 -d5
WD5741 Version 1
Update Drive
Copyright (C) 2013 Western Digital Corporation

WDC WD40EFRX-xxxxxxx xx.xxxxxx Drive update not needed
User avatar
schumaku
Guru
 
Posts: 30952
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 4:41 pm
Location: Kloten (Zurich), Switzerland -- Skype: schumaku
NAS Model: TS-x79 Pro

Re: I Bought WD 4TB Red Drives (Chap. 1 of a Long Story)

Postby GoetzVonBerlichingen » Wed Aug 20, 2014 12:41 am

schumaku wrote:
GoetzVonBerlichingen wrote:... What's up with WD providing S/W needing physical access to their drives in any format other than a bootable CD-ISO?

Look here, they do since last year -> http://support.wdc.com/product/download.asp?groupid=619&sid=201&lang=en

    (In der Annahme Du im deutchsprachigen Raum der Schweiz beheimatet bist ... mit Obigen habe ich beklagt, die Bereitstellung von SWs die physischen Zugang zu einem Laufwerk benötigen, in einer anderen als einer bootfähigen CD-ISO-Format. (Wenn Du anderswo wohnhaft bist ... tja, dann wird diese Erklärung nichts nutzen. Französisch bzw., Italienisch kann ich nicht ... geschweige denn Rätoromanisch oder Alemannisch! :ashamed: )

    WDC bietet solche SWs, die unter Windows {schon lang}, Mac {lang} und Linux {eine Weile} laufen. Aber zur Zeit sind keine bootfähigen ISOs vorhanden. Früher schon.)
To me, there is a real problem providing utilities that potentially modify hard-drive firmware ... in a format that can be executed on a live system. Perhaps it results from me simply not understanding the problems that just might arise (once in a blue moon , or when someone's luck is exceptionally bad) if a WD5741-determined-update takes place with virtual simultaneity as a QNAP-O/S-determined operation. Or perhaps I'm just old-fashioned.

I strongly believe an application that writes 'directly' to the disk -- that is, the application instructs the disk controller to write to a physical address on the drive with no O/S mediation -- is best engineered such that the drive can not be concurrently accessed by another process. While an application can certainly be written that locks the drive-resident controller during the update -- so that a competing write can not conflict -- the SW developer has no idea what the consequences of this lock are on the higher-level environment (like the operating system).

    With the time intervals involved, it's easy to poo-poo the idea of a conflicting write.

    Similarly, it's easy to poo-poo the idea of an O/S not being able to cope with a write-failure that is blocked by a program like WD5741.
Now, expand the horizon a little bit.

    Include the multiple cores contained in many CPUs.

    Include the multiple CPUs (each potentially multi-core) contained in some systems.

    Add to the mix, the multiple threads of execution implemented in modern O/S architectures.

    Include in your deliberations the almost incomprehensible speed of CPU instruction-execution, and the comparative glacial-like speed of the drive-resident controller.
And don'cha know Murphy is always invited to parties like this? :-0

Western Digital Corporation (WDC) should provide every one of their utilities as a bootable ISO.

Period.

Whether this imagined ISO boots a GPL Linux or DOS version matters not one iota to me ... although my druthers would be for a DOS version. A single-state O/S can be the ideal host for single-task programs. As an ISO, WD's engineers can field a known-good version of the software that has been tested and validated to work correctly while in operation ... in all cases. Not using the de jure standard, 'well it worked under these conditions, and shouldn't break anything in a more challenging environment.'

I have nothing against WD offering, and people choosing to use, hard-drive maintenance applications that execute on general-purpose operating systems ... as long as they also provide the application as a self-contained ISO to more skeptical consumers, who prefer a bullet-proof approach.

The Linux 32-bit build of the WD5741 Version 1 utility does run on for me on a TS-x69, copy to a share, and make it executable:

[/share/Public] # chmod 777 wd5741x32

List the drives:

[/share/Public] # ./wd5741x32 -d?
or
[/share/Public] # ./wd5741x32

Apply the update to disk N -> wd5741x32 -dN

[/share/Public] # ./wd5741x32 -d5
WD5741 Version 1
Update Drive
Copyright (C) 2013 Western Digital Corporation

WDC WD40EFRX-xxxxxxx xx.xxxxxx Drive update not needed

I still can not find any authoritative guidance about what WD5741 actually does. I do know that about 2/3 of a recent batch of WD 4TB Reds I recently purchased (16 total, all manufactured in the period May - July 2014) had the idle3 timer set to "Disabled" and 1/3 had the timer set to "300 seconds." If I had run WD5741 against these drives, I suspect they would all now have a idle3 timer value of 300 seconds ... no thanks!

I am not clear as to whether schumaku's drive five (d5) did not need an update because the timer3 was already at "300 seconds" (likely), or because the timer was disabled? Why does WD not inform the user of the timer3 value results (before and after running the SW)? And why does WD introduce the malapropism 'Update Drive' if only the timer3 value is affected? (In the case of the latter, all the more so when WD also distributes FW-updates for their drives, which have nothing to do with the idle3 timer setting.)

I suspect that the WD5471 behavior reflects the WDC desire that their customers not know the setting for the idle3 timer. Further ... <cue the sinister music> ... I suspect that WDC sets the timer3 value to 300 seconds to increase the likelihood of otherwise-premature drive-failure in the post-warranty period, i.e., in the outyears, especially from 3 to 5 years. :-0 Why would a corporation stoop to such dastardly efforts? Who knows. But it would support their artificial segmentation of the market, as well justifying the warranty differences between the Red and other drive-families. Aaah, never mind. I tend towards being a paranoid sort. :wink:

In my view there is no benefit to having the drives' head load/unload behavior (aka idle3 timer) to be other than that caused by the NAS O/S. So all the 4TB Red drives I use now have the idle3 timer set to "Disabled" ... courtesy of version 1.5 of WDIDLE3.EXE (running under Free-DOS) after booting from the UBCD.

<Editiert da mir die Rechtschreibung schwer fällt, and to better express my suspected rationale for WD's preference of 300 seconds for the idle3 timer value.>

...
Last edited by GoetzVonBerlichingen on Wed Aug 20, 2014 12:45 pm, edited 3 times in total.
GoetzVonBerlichingen
Know my way around
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 11:14 pm
NAS Model: TS-659 Pro+

Re: I Bought WD 4TB Red Drives (Chap. 1 of a Long Story)

Postby doktornotor » Wed Aug 20, 2014 12:50 am

GoetzVonBerlichingen wrote:Western Digital Corporation (WDC) should provide every one of their utilities as a bootable ISO.


Because there's a huge lack of bootable ISOs for Linux or FreeDOS... and because that's exactly what people do NOT want, mainly for the reason that there's nothing to boot the ISO from in the first place (no optical drive, no floppy). Plus - courtesy of junk like SecureBoot - booting similar stuff from anything external (USB included) is usually impossible without extensive messing with screwed up buggy (U)EFI settings. So, if anything, this should be provided in a memstick (USB flash disk) format. ISO seriously is useless for the purpose.

GoetzVonBerlichingen wrote:I still can not find any authoritative guidance about what WD5741 actually does. I do know that 2/3 of a recent batch of WD 4TB Reds I got had the WDIDLE3 timer set to "Disabled" and 1/3 had the timer set to "300 seconds."


It sets the timer to 300 seconds. It actually does something on those "brainfart" batches of drives where the timers were set to 8 seconds for absolutely unknown reason, causing the LCC counters to skyrocket to tens of thousands in weeks.
I'm gone from this forum till QNAP stop wasting volunteers' time. Get help from QNAP helpdesk instead.
Warning: offensive signature and materials damaging QNAP reputation follow:
QNAP's FW security issues
QNAP's hardware compatibility list madness
QNAP's new logo competition
Dear QNAP, kindly fire your clueless incompetent forum "admin" And while at it, don't forget the webmaster!
User avatar
doktornotor
Ask me anything
 
Posts: 7499
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2012 5:44 am
NAS Model: Not Selected

Next

Return to Hardware & Software Compatibility

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests