WD RED Drives (WD10EFRX WD20EFRX WD30EFRX)

[WesleyNL]

i got 4x wd reds 10tb in my ts-673 and it works fine

[tahakamal]

Recently bought the red 2tb hard drive to keep my movies and game setups. So far I am satisfied with this drive.

[PointOfView]

I want to replace WD Red WD40EFRX 4Tb in TS-569 Pro with WD Red WD80EFAX 8Tb or WD Red WD100EFAX 10Tb. No RAID on this disk.
Is it possible?
Does anyone work?
Share information, please. And then the compatibility list ended on 6Tb models.

[dolbyman]

shouldn't be any issues with single disks of that size

just make sure you do external backups and don't use them for internal backups

[Johnno72]

I see that QNAP have removed a substantial quantity of WD drives from their compatibility list... I am in need of replacing all my WD 4TB Red Pro NAS drives as I have already got two away for RMA with WD, now this morning I have another WD Red failure.

I can now understand why QNAP have reduced WD compatibility hdd's.

The only good thing about WD Reds (so far) has been they have been replaced under warranty, which entails shipping HDD's to Vietnam for warranty even though they were bought in Australia, this I find disgusting. So far this shipping has cost me $600 AUD alone.

WD drives now to me are useless even if they are rated NAS and compatible as per QNAP. I would not touch another WD. Which restricts compatible HDD's seriously. I will head over to the Seagate Thread and ask some Q's there.

Johnno

[P3R]

I see that QNAP have removed a substantial quantity of WD drives from their compatibility list...

Removed what disks from what Qnap models?

I can now understand why QNAP have reduced WD compatibility hdd's.

It's only a compatibiliy list and not a buying guide or disk quality evaluation so I would be very surprised if they had done that on the grounds you claim.

WD drives now to me are useless even if they are rated NAS and compatible as per QNAP. I would not touch another WD.

Do as you wish but I think it was unfair to judge all Seagate disks by experiences with the terrible Seagate Barracuda DL/DM disks and I think the same here. WD enterprise disks (especially not all the former HGST models) aren't any worse today because WD Reds happened to have a desktop disk failure rate (which isn't surprising as they are more or less desktop disk hardware with a NAS compatible firmware).

Today when there are so few disk manufacturers left, we will soon run out of suppliers if avoiding all those that we have at some time experienced a problem with.

I would not touch another WD. Which restricts compatible HDD's seriously. I will head over to the Seagate Thread and ask some Q's there.

Do that but you also have enterprise disks from all manufacturers. As NAS disks have become so popular they are expensive (especially the hugely overpriced WD Red Pro) and enterprise disks can often be found at better prices.

[Johnno72]

I see that QNAP have removed a substantial quantity of WD drives from their compatibility list...

Removed what disks from what Qnap models?

NAS and HDD's in my signature.

I can now understand why QNAP have reduced WD compatibility hdd's.

It's only a compatibiliy list and not a buying guide or disk quality evaluation so I would be very surprised if they had done that on the grounds you claim.

There would be a reason why certain HDD's have been removed from compatibility lists. All I am saying is that these WD4001FFSX obviously are having issues with QNAP as they are no longer in the list, though as stated usually any particular brand once tested and approved the others should work also.

WD drives now to me are useless even if they are rated NAS and compatible as per QNAP. I would not touch another WD.

Do as you wish but I think it was unfair to judge all Seagate disks by experiences with the terrible Seagate Barracuda DL/DM disks and I think the same here. WD enterprise disks (especially not all the former HGST models) aren't any worse today because WD Reds happened to have a desktop disk failure rate (which isn't surprising as they are more or less desktop disk hardware with a NAS compatible firmware).

I was referring to WD not Seagate and as I did mention the only Seagates that I had used were desktop, and no experience with Enterprise NAS Seagate HDDs hence why I will give them a go after so many WD failures. I should be getting more than 18 months to three years out of the HDD's.

Today when there are so few disk manufacturers left, we will soon run out of suppliers if avoiding all those that we have at some time experienced a problem with.

And yes I agree with your statement re smaller choice of manufacturers. I have not used Toshiba's. Hence why the time is now to start using other manufacturer's such as Seagate Enterprise/NAS.

I would not touch another WD. Which restricts compatible HDD's seriously. I will head over to the Seagate Thread and ask some Q's there.

Do that but you also have enterprise disks from all manufacturers. As NAS disks have become so popular they are expensive (especially the hugely overpriced WD Red Pro) and enterprise disks can often be found at better prices.

Yep hence why I am looking at Enterprise and NAS from Seagate. I know desktop HDD's are useless for a NAS environment so not even contemplating that range like some people will do to save a dollar.

I have the WD Reds and Seagates at the same price, well $1 difference with the WD Reds being $1 more expensive so money is not the issue, reliability and warranty are the two points that will decide the purchase.

[P3R]

NAS and HDD's in my signature.

Most likely due to bad management of the list by Qnap. That wouldn't be the first time.

There would be a reason why certain HDD's have been removed from compatibility lists.

If deliberatly removed, it would be because an incompatibility had been discovered or for political reasons. Considering all the non-optimal disks they've had on the list I think we can safely say that quality or longetivity isn't a factor for being listed or not.

All I am saying is that these WD4001FFSX obviously are having issues with QNAP as they are no longer in the list...

They're still listed for many other Qnap models.

I was referring to WD not Seagate...

And I was trying to give an example of why I find the strategy of banning a brand because of bad experiences with a single model irrational. Since both WD and Seagate have had their far share of bad products, we run out of options. Both being brand loyal AND being a brand hater will in the end usually prove costly. I think it's better to be pragmatic and try to cherry pick the good products from any major brand. Discriminate bad products not complete brands is my advice.

I have the WD Reds and Seagates at the same price, well $1 difference with the WD Reds being $1 more expensive...

I guess that again show that the Australian market is a bit different. All the times that I've checked WD Red Pro have been more expensive than Seagate Ironwolf Pro (and the predecessor Seagate Enterprise NAS) on both the US and European markets. And that's looking at purchase price only, if also considering the better specifications on the Ironwolf Pro the difference is even bigger and it's surprising that anybody still buy WD Red Pro. I guess it's again because of that brand loyalty/hate hangup that people make buying decisions that aren't the most logical.

[storageman]

And Exos are cheaper and better than Ironwolf Pro (partly due to not having the Rescue+ service that hardly no one ever uses).

Also don't forget WD Ultrastars are out of Hitachi factory and an excellent drive so don't dismiss all WD!

In my view the decision to remove vibration protection on Reds to keep the drives cheap was a daft decision, better to be honest with customers and force them to pay more for stability.
Also it limited the drive to 8 bays. As for Red Pros seen some issues with them so I wouldn't use for enterprise.

Recently Seagate's marketing has stolen WD's thunder and they have made huge progress in clawing back the NAS HDD market from the DM/DL drive debactle. Nothing wrong with Seagate now!

And on Tosh, don't ignore them, actually we are seeing good pricing and good reliability. They're not great at marketing and that's their problem (bunch of techies like Hitachi were).

[P3R]

Nothing wrong with Seagate now!

It wasn't when everyone except me hated Seagate either as long as you avoided the DL/DMs. Their NAS and enterprise disks was as good (or bad) then as they are now.

[Johnno72]

All I am saying is that these WD4001FFSX obviously are having issues with QNAP as they are no longer in the list...

They're still listed for many other Qnap models.

Not for my NAS and that is what I am talking about and concerned with. They were listed when I purchased the QNAP, not now. So there might be some reason why they are not in the list for my NAS no longer.

And I was trying to give an example of why I find the strategy of banning a brand because of bad experiences with a single model irrational. Since both WD and Seagate have had their far share of bad products, we run out of options. Both being brand loyal AND being a brand hater will in the end usually prove costly. I think it's better to be pragmatic and try to cherry pick the good products from any major brand. Discriminate bad products not complete brands is my advice.

I am discriminating the WD product in general as the product I have spent thousands of dollars on because of the specific nature of usage that they have been advertised and sold under have failed that sooner than they should have, not even hitting the MTBF as rated by the manufacturer. I have given WD a fair chance and operation and the product has simply failed. It is now time to give another manufacturer a go and that will be Seagate or Toshiba (both which I have only ever dealt with desktop versions), I will start with Seagate and go from there.

I am brand loyal, it does pay in some instances, however when I run into the same situation that I have currently with WD HDD's dying every other month or sooner, that brand has now become unreliable, simple as that. There has obviously been an issue because the HDD's have been replaced under warranty, at a cost to me once again for that brand loyalty I had for WD.

I guess that again show that the Australian market is a bit different.

Here in Australia we are constantly being ripped off with technology pricing. Heck it is cheaper for me to import, including currency conversions, shipping and warranty as with WD I have to ship back to Vietnam so that leaves me thinking there really is no benefit in buying locally. Example, not one business in my area sells WD Red NAS or any other NAS rated product, ridiculous.

All the times that I've checked WD Red Pro have been more expensive than Seagate Ironwolf Pro (and the predecessor Seagate Enterprise NAS) on both the US and European markets. And that's looking at purchase price only, if also considering the better specifications on the Ironwolf Pro the difference is even bigger and it's surprising that anybody still buy WD Red Pro. I guess it's again because of that brand loyalty/hate hangup that people make buying decisions that aren't the most logical.

I have never hidden the fact of my preferences from the beginning even when I went the WD path. I have said it was from loyality from decades of use of the brand over the decades of replacing Seagate brand failures, again only desktop versions, if the desktop versions failure rate was that high can't even imagine what the failure rate of NAS rated would be. I am left with little choice now that WD brand has failed my reliability requirements, currently I have been advised it will be at least another two weeks before replacement HDD's will ship!!! Six weeks to get the defective HDD's replaced, product and warranty both are not reliable at all. Now time to try another brand to see how that stacks up, it certainly cannot be any worse, I hope.

It is good that we do have choices and it is well advised to use those choices. You have previously stated, many years back, no issues with Seagate Ironwolf, same as others. If I am to spend thousands of dollars once again on new hardware I would like to know the reliability issues.

With this new outlay I could simply have purchased new HDD's to expand capacity and backup capacity, where now I am spending that money on replacing existing product with no advantage to me but reliability of product.