Unfortunately, while the SMR WD Red performed respectably in the previous benchmarks, the RAIDZ resilver test proved to be another matter entirely. Also, if you trim the entire disk (and maybe wait a little), does it return to initial performance? SMR drive support is getting better when hosts know they are using SMR drives. Please correct. Even down to external drives needing to be marked in this way. In the Video Patrick says 9 days. Please, participate and enjoy! Is that the next step? u are correct. We found SMR can put data at risk 13-16x longer than CMR. At the start you’d think he’s anti-WD but by the end you realize he’s actually anti-Red SMR. They are also not doing a realistic test since it seems they are not putting a workload on the NAS during rebuilds? The WD40EFAX turns in performance numbers that are significantly worse than the CMR drives. But, selling SMR as a NAS drive, AND not clearly labeling it, (like Red Lite), that should be criminal. So if later when qts hero comes out and your WD RED NAS (WD40EFRX) keeps dropping out, this is why. WD technicians don’t have a way to query the drive and ask for the model number?? Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts, https://forum.qnap.com/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=154346, https://blocksandfiles.com/2020/04/15/shingled-drives-have-non-shingled-zones-for-caching-writes/. Clearly the problem is with the label on the drive. In some ways, this is like timing a runner’s sprint time after running a marathon. Just a reminder, this test was performed as immediately as possible after completing the drive preparation process. Not sure if these will be of much use trying to pick between SMR/CMR drives (although it's been presented as "fact" that EFRX = CMR and EFAX = SMR, it would result in a requirement to "know" models in order to put that into drive.db and that means "moving target") WD20EFRX vs WD40EFAX (sorry, no WD40EFRX on hand) I didn’t specifically checked for it back then because, you know, N300 series. We had two main areas of testing. My use case would just be me and my wife, and once the newborn is at age, perhaps him? western digital, Seagate, or Toshiba. That said, his personal IT motto has to be "if it's not broke, don't fix it" so sometimes the old ways are best. However, the WD40EFAX is not a consumer desktop-focused drive. Your video and web are usually much closer to 1 another. Perhaps that was because we were testing the use of the drive as a replacement rather than building an entire array of SMR drives. Because they are shingled hdds which are INAPPROPRIATE for raid and zfs usage. Duplicity or lazy indifference or both? WTF is that??? Anyway when purchasing the drives, even if it's not marketed as SMR, i guess we still have to look hard to verify if the hdd is SMR, PMR or CMR. https://www.cnet.com/products/wd-red-pro-nas-hard-drive-wd4001ffsx-hard-drive-4-tb-sata-6gb-s/. I want to point out that you’re wrong about one thing. Given the significant performance and capability differential between the CMR WD Red and the SMR model, they should be different brands or lines rather than just product numbers. It’s nice to see the Will cameo in a video too. Finally a reputable site has covered this. ☎ Buy Western Digital WD Red (SMR) WD40EFAX 4TB 3.5" SATA 6Gb/s 5400rpm at the best price » Same / Next Day Delivery WorldWide -- FREE Business Quotes ☎Call for pricing +44 20 8288 8555 sales@span.com Free Advice TDMR - Two-Dimentional Magnetic Recording (can be found on both CMR and SMR types of drives). there is no edit, so i may have to delete and repost. Is WD USING RAID / more demanding users as “guinea pigs” to test SMR and then move on and use SMR on +14TB drives (that currently use HELIUM inside to bypass the theoretical limitation of 6 platters / 12 heads)??? I think this is the link you are looking for: https://documents.westerndigital.com/content/dam/doc-library/en_us/assets/public/western-digital/product/internal-drives/wd-red-hdd/product-brief-western-digital-wd-red-hdd.pdf. SMR has worse sustained write performance than CMR, which can cause severe issues during resilver or other write-intensive operations, up to and including failure of that resilver. I thought it was good in explanation, but it’s odd. While it’s running well enough at the moment, does anyone know if a scrub is likely to cause a problems with SMR drives? We say 9 days and we’re understating the problem, which in my mind is the more defensible position. Will has worked in both big enterprise and small business IT since 2001. Since my source had 4 x 4TB WD Red CMRs, using a single 8TB drive for backups was perfect. If we’d said 10 days, someone could come along and say we were exaggerating the issue. Would be very unhappy if I had gotten SMR drives though. Has anyone tested this? According to iXsystems, WD Red SMR drives running firmware revision 82.00A82 can cause the drive to enter a failed state during heavy loads using ZFS. ServeTheHome ran a full suite of benchmarks on the 4TB WD Red NAS WD40EFAX (SMR) versus the 4TB WD Red NAS WD40EFRX (CMR). Stupid WD support… ). With the the 3.96 and 7.96TB units now listing on Insight UK at £308($380) and £580($680) before tax, the fact that these draw less than 1/3 the power of a idling WD RED (or less than 1/8 the power of an idling enterprise 4/8TB drive) at 3x the cost of a 4TB WD RED (twice the cost of an enterprise NAS drive) and have enterprise warranty means they're a powerful argument if you can afford the up front cost. Thanks, Will. I use ZFS on it, with snapshots, so it actually stores multiple backups. I’m guessing the CMR model is an older one as I bought mine a few years ago now. That’s why STH is a gem. and what replacement hdds do you get if replaced under warranty (especially since HGST got bought by WD)? The performance of the drive seemed to recover relatively quickly if given even brief periods of inactivity. They’re using the technical block size and command bits to hide that they’ve done a less thorough experiment. Great article as always. I’m thinking YES!! The reason being simply that whilst SSDs are more expensive, the power savings and better seek times usually make up for it over the lifespan of the equipment. If you have to spend a lot more for CMR drives and end up with increased power draw or noise penalties associated with 7200RPM drives then Micron's ssds are waving their tentacles even more compellingly at you. JimDeLaHunt June 1, 2020, 3:46am #10. marcolopes: 60EFAX are SMR! Why keep SMR and PMR drives with the SAME capacity in the same line and HIDING this info from customers? You don’t need to do it with CMR drives either. I’d like to say thanks to Seagate for keeping CMR IronWolf. WD Red = CMR, WD Pink = SMR. The drives perform terrible ever since day 1, causing the whole PC to appear unresponsive for minutes the moment 1 file in the Steam library is rewritten for game updates. List of WD CMR and SMR hard drives (HDD) Updated table : 23/10/2020 Now … marcolopes. For my use, (it was the only 8TB drive on the market for a reasonable price at that time), it works well. Get the best of STH delivered weekly to your inbox. A great example is http://blog.robiii.nl/2020/04/wd-red-nas-drives-use-smr-and-im-not.html. ☎ Buy Western Digital WD Red Plus (CMR) WD40EFRX 4TB 3.5" SATA 6Gb/s 5400rpm at the best price » Same / Next Day Delivery WorldWide -- FREE Business Quotes ☎Call for pricing +44 20 8288 8555 sales@span.com Free Advice 🙂 Great to see some hard facts related to this after reading about it from others. Thank you for your time The ability to keep systems running and maintaining operations is a key feature of NAS/ RAID systems. If you are reading this piece, and know someone who uses, or may use WD Red drives in NAS arrays but may not keep track of trends, send them this article, a chart from it, or the video. Older WD40EFRX are CMR/PMR, newer WD40EFAX are the SMR drives. In the file copy test, the effects of the slower SMR technology starts to show itself a bit. And they (WD) know it, hence why the hush hush. Friends don’t let friends use SMR drives for NAS. During this time, scrubs were disabled for the pool and resilvering priority was completely disabled. They go way too in-depth on the technical side, but when you’re looking at it, they did a less good experiment. Given the significant performance and capability differential between the CMR WD Red and the SMR model, they should be different brands or lines rather than just product numbers. Top Hardware Components for FreeNAS NAS Servers, Top Hardware Components for pfSense Appliances, Top Hardware Components for napp-it and Solarish NAS Servers, Top Picks for Windows Server 2016 Essentials Hardware, The DIY WordPress Hosting Server Hardware Guide, RAID Reliability Calculator | Simple MTTDL Model, STH Q2 2020 Update A Letter from the Editor, Marvell NativeRAID NVMe RAID for M.2 Solutions Comes to HPE, https://documents.westerndigital.com/content/dam/doc-library/en_us/assets/public/western-digital/product/internal-drives/wd-red-hdd/product-brief-western-digital-wd-red-hdd.pdf, https://www.westerndigital.com/products/internal-drives/wd-red-hdd, https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/05/western-digital-gets-sued-for-sneaking-smr-disks-into-its-nas-channel/, https://www.hattislaw.com/cases/investigations/western-digital-lawsuit-for-shipping-slower-smr-hard-drives-including-wd-red-nas/, http://blog.robiii.nl/2020/04/wd-red-nas-drives-use-smr-and-im-not.html, https://documents.westerndigital.com/content/dam/doc-library/en_us/assets/public/western-digital/product/internal-drives/wd-red-hdd/data-sheet-western-digital-wd-red-hdd-2879-800002.pdf, https://crystalmark.info/en/software/crystaldiskinfo, https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/06/western-digitals-smr-disks-arent-great-but-theyre-not-garbage/2/. So they can target “specific” markets with the SMR drives? I truly would like to know in order to make a decision. They were apologetic, but then they dropped the bombshell: All Seagate 2.5″ drives are SMR, they no longer make 2.5″ PMR drives. But the question for me (as somebody who is about to buy a new NAS as a media hub for Videos and Photos) I still have two old st4000dm005 lying around and would use them and upgrade two additional a cheap 8TB (SMR – st8000dm004) or with the whole SMR NAS drive debate, a very expensive CMR Ironwolf or something like that ? Robert, that video is very hard to follow. (1) WDC WD20EARX-00PASB0 : 2000,3 GB [1/0/0, sa1] – wd And this is VERY BAD NEWS. And upon further investigation I found out that these disks are SMR. But for a consumer case is the whole SMR debate a real problem? The only positive here is that the resilver did finish, and encountered no errors along the way, but the performance operating in the RAIDZ array was completely unacceptable. Something we noticed is that the test that immediately followed the file copy test was a sequential CrystalDiskMark workload: As you can see, with a heavy write workload immediately preceding the CDM test, the SMR drive was notably slower. In these kinds of shorter burst activity workloads, one can see how SMR may be used as a substitute. I second the motion to re-test with Linux MD-RAID. (BTW, if you ask WD how to know the DRIVE MODEL inside an external WD enclosure, they will tell you it’s impossible!!! Their insight into the drive being used while doing the rebuild is great too. 【hdd】8tbのst8000dm004 レビュー【smrとcmrの違い】 コストパフォーマンスに優れた8TBの3.5インチHDDとして人気となっている、SegateのST8000DM004。 今回の記事ではこの「ST8000DM004」のレビューに加え、記録方式のSMRとCMRの違いを解説します。 Someone said this is part of a RACE for BIGGER capacities. Knowning this, the question I have is, what drives should we be using in our NAS? Such a shame, I was happy with putting red drives into client Nas now I will be putting ironwolf, what were Western digital thinking? I filed a support request with Seagate. Haven't had any major issues but I'm pretty sure this has happened to me before. Had no idea this was a thing but glad I googled it now. SMR/CMR: CMR: CMR: 3.5" 8TB and above: CMR: CMR--CMR: Nonetheless, it has now followed up with a complete list of SMR models that should certainly help alleviate concerns and make it … ウエスタンデジタルのプレスリリース(2019年12月24日 11時20分)ウエスタンデジタル、世界初の20tb smrと18tb cmr hddのサンプル出荷を開始 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjzoSwR6AYA. With that said, all of the tested drives were disconnected as soon as their previous benchmarks were complete, and before plugging them back in for use in our test NAS array. 2~6tb 사이의 제품만 제품군별로 smr과 cmr이 혼용돼 서 사용된 것으로 되어 있습니다. So long as there is proper disclosure and people are making an informed choice, then SMR is a valid technology. That 9 day and almost 14-hour rebuild means that using the WD Red 4TB SMR drive inadvertently in an array would lead to your data being vulnerable for around 9 days longer than the WD Red 4TB CMR drive or Seagate IronWolf. STH articles have always had the feel of ‘real news’ to me–from the easystore article to this one, highlighting the true pros and cons. It is often desirable to choose a CMR drive instead. My backup window is not time constrained, I simply let it run until it’s done. The drive does say WD40EFRX, but says “WD RED” rather than “WD RED PLUS” as advertised. 2) For backup purposes SMR HDD and QLC SSD is a good choice. While all three CMR drives comfortably completed the resilver in under 17 hours, the SMR drive took nearly 230 hours to perform an identical task. Gladly, i checked my WD ELEMENTS drives, a NONE of the internal drives is PLAGUED by SMR! You’d be surprised how often we see clients do this panic and put in new drives. Still, this is a good indicator of the drive working through its internal data management processes and impacting performance. I had such a great week too. In read tests the SMR drive performs fairly similarly to the CMR based WD40EFRX. Edit: People have reported that this is actually a CMR Drive WD40EFRX inside. The performance results achieved by the WD Red WD40EFAX surprised me; my only personal experience with SMR drives prior to this point was with Seagate’s Archive line. We have maybe 200 CMR Reds that we’ve bought over the last year. I wanted to share an overview of our DMSMR architecture, and how we apply specific capabilities and configurations. So glad I got 12TB Toshibaa N300’s last year that are CMR. In both cases, the WD Red SMR drives would not work for me personally. Ontop of that, when enquiring WD, they refuse to clarify whether they are PMR or SMR. According to others the WD40EFRX are unaffected supposedly. From the brief I now know the 3TB drives I bought for my Synology are CMR. Period! Robert Dole, We are continuously innovating to advance it. The WD40EFAX is the only SMR drive in the comparison and is the focus of the testing. So they go way into the weeds of commands (that the average QNAP, Synology, Dobo user has no clue about) then say it’s fine… oh but for ZFS its still sucks. And really nobody (you, too) mentions how inefficient this is in case of power consumption as all the reading and writing while moving the data on a top shingle consumes energy while an CMR drive is sleeping all the time. Many will simply purchase the newer model expecting it to be better as previous generations have been. So take your time and pick your storage depending on your needs. I had followed the story on blocksandfiles (.com) and this is really good that it landed on STH and then followed by a testing report.