They’re using different size drives, more drives, they’re not putting a workload and just letting it rebuild. Fortunately I bought WD Red 4TB drives a long time ago and they are EFRX and they were used in a RAID system. They go way too in-depth on the technical side, but when you’re looking at it, they did a less good experiment. Older WD40EFRX are CMR/PMR, newer WD40EFAX are the SMR drives. Well, i got new for you: crystaldiskinfo CAN!!! We are using a third party service to manage subscriptions so you can unsubscribe at any time. As Micron point out: The average large HDD is write once read mostly and the 0.2-0.8DWPD profile of the IONs is a good fit for a lot of applicatons. Still, this is a good indicator of the drive working through its internal data management processes and impacting performance. 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. How BIG is it? Reds aren’t cheap either, but they’ve previously been good. If you use WD Red CMR drives, you had class-leading performance in this test but if you bought a WD Red SMR drive, perhaps not understanding the difference, you would have another 9 days of potentially catastrophic data vulnerability. When that NAS readiness was put to the test the drive performed spectacularly badly. I didn’t specifically checked for it back then because, you know, N300 series. I have a problem with your RAIDZ test: normally I replace failed disks with brand new, just unpacked ones, not the ones that were used to write a lot of data and immediately disconnected. The performance of the drive seemed to recover relatively quickly if given even brief periods of inactivity. The WD40EFAX is the only SMR drive in the comparison and is the focus of the testing. An article like this has a high likelihood of ruffling feathers, so we wanted to have as many bases covered as possible. If you watch the video, it’s funny. You don’t need to do it with CMR drives either. Taking into account that you regularly make backups from the backups. 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 … 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 ? Still, it is a good step. List of WD CMR and SMR hard drives (HDD) Updated table : 23/10/2020 Now … perhaps hardware raid or Linux mdadm etc, instead of just ZFS. 2.5인치 hdd의 경우 500기가 이하의 제품은 모두 cmr 방식이고 1테라 레드 제품은 cmr이지만 블루와 블랙 제품은 1테라 이상은 모두 smr로 나와 있습니다. At least WD is now showing which model numbers are CMR or SMR on their spec. Is that the next step? Since then, I standardized on 10 TB which are CRM. It seems like a marketing TEST!!! NAS et disque dur SMR. hey thanks for the quick reply! Even down to external drives needing to be marked in this way. Friends don’t let friends use SMR drives for NAS. In the file copy test, the effects of the slower SMR technology starts to show itself a bit. Western Digital 3TB WD Red Plus NAS Internal Hard Drive - 5400 RPM Class, SATA 6 Gb/s, CMR, 64 MB Cache, 3.5" - WD30EFRX Seagate IronWolf 4TB NAS Internal Hard Drive HDD – CMR 3.5 Inch SATA 6Gb/s 5900 RPM 64MB Cache for RAID Network Attached Storage – Frustration Free Packaging (ST4000VNZ008/VN008) 2~6tb 사이의 제품만 제품군별로 smr과 cmr이 혼용돼 서 사용된 것으로 되어 있습니다. 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. We also tested the SMR drives before and after the CMR drives to ensure that it was not a case of something happening due to the order of testing. ServeTheHome ran a full suite of benchmarks on the 4TB WD Red NAS WD40EFAX (SMR) versus the 4TB WD Red NAS WD40EFRX (CMR). I’m fine with the drive makers selling SMR drives. I have six 4TB WD40EFRX (CMR) and four 6TB WD60EFAX(SMR) as well as a SSD for the operating system. Based on my time with those drives, I was expecting much poorer results. Granted, this is a good article that demonstrates what happens when SMR cache is filled and disks don’t have enough idle time to recover, but I doubt this happens a lot in the real life, and your advice to avoid SMR does not follow from the data you’re obtained. Clearly the problem is with the label on the drive. sorry i was copy pasting hence the mistake. In PCMark8, the WD40EFAX manages to outperform the CMR WD40EFRX. Brand-new never used 4TB Western Digital NAS Drive WD40EFRX 3.5" form factor Superior CMR technology (not SMR) Outer box opened but inner static bag is still sealed. Write tests tell a mostly similar story. I am running a 6×2.5″ 500GB RAID10 array for a total of 3TB for my Steam library. I’d like to say thanks to Seagate for keeping CMR IronWolf. That’s why STH is a gem. Then I found out about this lawsuit. Get the best of STH delivered weekly to your inbox. 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 is often desirable to choose a CMR drive instead. In the case of my network (a university research laboratory) it means I can drop a bunch of other stuff on desktop systems installed to cache network reads and mitigate head seek thrashing on the fileservers which drops power consumption further, but more importantly drops the purchase costs AND administrative complexity setting the things up. Your video and web are usually much closer to 1 another. Just got off the phone with a Seagate rep. And I’m fuming right now. Also, if you trim the entire disk (and maybe wait a little), does it return to initial performance? I saw that Ars piece. Even with a new motherboard the problem persisted. Most people do not understand how complex SMR is when data needs to be moved from a bottom shingled track. Things get worse when Steam needs to preallocate storage space for new games, often I have to leave the machine alone for two to three hours. You can still buy the WD40EFRX currently. Gladly, i checked my WD ELEMENTS drives, a NONE of the internal drives is PLAGUED by SMR! The differences between SMR and CMR are fairly nuanced where regular STH readers may understand, but those regular readers are the same IT professionals that keep up on the latest technology trends in the market. They were priced like new WD Red 10TB 😉. Had no idea this was a thing but glad I googled it now. Also if you bought these old stock models (probably considered EOL? As a perpetual dabbler, he is always open to new solutions for old problems. Dear Western Digital, I will probably continue to buy WD Red in the future, but I just voted with my $$$ following that story. here they compared a Rebuild with mixed drives and the results were not as sever ? Testing the WD Red 4TB SMR WD40EFAX Drive. Older WD40EFRX are CMR/PMR, newer WD40EFAX are the SMR drives. Thank you for the article and thank you in particular Will for the link to the WD Product brief. Western Digital Red 4 TB 3.5-Inch SATA 6GB/s NAS Hard Drive (WD40EFRX) 4.4 out of 5 stars 6,890. I want to point out that you’re wrong about one thing. Thanks to the public outcry, WD is now properly noting the use of SMR technology in the drives on their online store, and Amazon and Newegg have also followed suit. That’s terrible practice. ... WDC WD40EFRX-68N32N0 : 4000,7 GB [2/0/0, sa1] - … It’s nice to see the Will cameo in a video too. Would be very unhappy if I had gotten SMR drives though. Knowning this, the question I have is, what drives should we be using in our NAS? 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. 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. AFAIK, the SMR Reds support the TRIM command. Thanks, Will. Since my source had 4 x 4TB WD Red CMRs, using a single 8TB drive for backups was perfect. And it looks like WD got caught and now have a class-action law suit brewing: (EDIT -> COPY or CTRL-C). The WD blog says the WD40EFRX is CMR, yet I see no “Plus” written on the drive. Ars articles always lack the depth of real reporting, but do provide an entertainment factor and many times the commenters have much more insight (which is what I love finding and reading). Was there nobody on the team who realised the consequences? That level of SMR on a black is just not acceptable. Even with a cache flush they’re hitting steady state because of the rebuild. In read tests the SMR drive performs fairly similarly to the CMR based WD40EFRX. or Toshiba N300 would be the next alternatives? (2) WDC WD40EFRX-68N32N0 : 4000,7 GB [2/0/0, sa1] – wd I filed a support request with Seagate. Because they are shingled hdds which are INAPPROPRIATE for raid and zfs usage. So, if anyone needs to know WHAT INTERNAL DRIVE MODEL they have in their WD EXTERNAL ENCLOSURES, install and COPY PAST the info to the clipboard! About 5 years ago I bought a Seagate 8TB Archive SMR disk for backing up my FreeNAS. June 2, 2020, 1:29pm #11. We have maybe 200 CMR Reds that we’ve bought over the last year. ☎ 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 Free Advice If you mix drives, the slower ones tend to dictate performance more times than not. Edit: Back in stock with local store pickup also. I think this is the link you are looking for: If we’d said 10 days, someone could come along and say we were exaggerating the issue. You didn’t address this but now I’ve got a problem. We tested WD Red SMR v CMR drives to see if there was indeed a significant impact with the change. Sometimes they put in blues or whatever because that’s all they can get. there is no edit, so i may have to delete and repost. What makes this worse is, there is no mention that these WD RED NAS hdds are SMR in their specification page. But for a consumer case is the whole SMR debate a real problem? Would be interesting to test on consumer devices such as Synology or QNAP ? Press J to jump to the feed. Is this CMR technology or SMR technology? 3. While it’s running well enough at the moment, does anyone know if a scrub is likely to cause a problems with SMR drives? Due to the nature of our last test, it was not performed in rapid succession with the previous two. Having rolled out DM-SMR at 98% of the the price of CMR, WD/SG/Tosh are not going to wave a magic wand and say "oops sorry, we furfued this, here's your CMR drives back at the same price". I will NEVER buy another EXTERNAL WD drive again without the warranty to check the internal drive MODEL first!!!! You have entered an incorrect email address! Anybody who are familiar with raid and zfs, probably would not have bought it had they known they were SMR hdds. That is not a recipe for success. The WD40EFAX performed so poorly that we repeated the test on a second disk to rule out user error; the second disk exhibited the same extremely slow resilver speeds. 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. I wanted to share an overview of our DMSMR architecture, and how we apply specific capabilities and configurations. 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. IIRC the seagate SMR was something like 80GB SMR, 20GB CMR, 80GB SMR, 20GB CMR and that was still too much for normal multi-tasking use of the drive. One could argue that you may not transfer 125GB files every day, but that is less data than the video production folder for this article’s companion video we linked at the start. CONCLUSION: one more checkbox to check when buying drives, not SMR? We found SMR can put data at risk 13-16x longer than CMR. There was no information on whether the drives are SMR or PMR, and there were NO indication whatsoever that they should not be used in RAID arrays. In either case, we suggest not using them. and what replacement hdds do you get if replaced under warranty (especially since HGST got bought by WD)? The problem now is that SMR are firmly embedded and they are here to stay. I have 4 4tb WD reds in my Qnap tvs-471. There may also be old stock of HGST ultrastars or deskstar NAS hdds. WD technicians don’t have a way to query the drive and ask for the model number?? Simply saying SMR is not enough without showing the impact. And this is VERY BAD NEWS. The SMR drive has a much larger cache than the CMR version, 256MB vs 64MB, which perhaps helps account for the win here. 【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。 During this time, scrubs were disabled for the pool and resilvering priority was completely disabled. 2) For backup purposes SMR HDD and QLC SSD is a good choice. I had such a great week too. 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. Customers MUST be informed of this new tech, even those using EXTERNAL SINGLE DRIVES ENCLOSURES!!! 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. My backup window is not time constrained, I simply let it run until it’s done. Not talking about it is a bigger issue even if I could see myself accepting 10-20% of the drive was SMR. I know I’m being a d!ck here but the video has a much more thorough impact assessment while this is more showing the testing behind what’s being said in the video. This is a a great article. 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. ☎ 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 Free Advice 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. However, the WD40EFAX is not a consumer desktop-focused drive. Best Buy has the retail version of WD40EFRX on clearance for $80.99 FS. (1) WDC WD20EARX-00PASB0 : 2000,3 GB [1/0/0, sa1] – wd HGST fyi got bought out by Western Digital. This is the revision of firmware that came on both of our drives. If so, this is the best deal for a … Why keep SMR and PMR drives with the SAME capacity in the same line and HIDING this info from customers? It’s about time a large highly regarded site stepped in by doing more than just covering what Chris did. Please correct. yes indeed they only compare rebuilding while there is no other access. WD Red 10TB NAS Internal Hard Drive - 5400 RPM Class, SATA 6 Gb/s, CMR, 256 MB Cache, 3.5" - WD101EFAX ... Leider gibt Western-Digital auch keine Informationen dazu und ist offensichtlich heimlich von CMR auf SMR umgestiegen. Yes, there is an array running here, due to the brilliance of picking drives from different production runs and vendors, that has half SMR and half CMR. u are correct. I get that it’s not OK to hide what the drive actually uses, but on a Media Server/Backup level ? We do want to point out that we likely want to see a more rigorous drive certification process at iXsystems, but also that they at least have done a good job communicating it on their blog. I’d really like to go through all my drives and explicitly verify which ones are SMR vs CMR. People are seeing very poor performance with these SMR drives and Synology as well, even in normal operation. JimDeLaHunt June 1, 2020, 3:46am #10. marcolopes: 60EFAX are SMR! In my opinion, the SMR Reds are a case of fraudulent advertising. I commented at the time it allowed them to finally merge that it was likely that China saw SSds as providing sufficient competition to keep the HDD makers honest - and I think I've been proven right. Instead, it is a WD Red drive with NAS branding all over it. While I expect the drive failures, I also look for a predictable level of performance during operation and rebuilds. It is strange not to at least generate some workload during a rebuild. sorry i was copy pasting hence the mistake. Their insight into the drive being used while doing the rebuild is great too. I wonder to what extent can performance be regained with its use. But, selling SMR as a NAS drive, AND not clearly labeling it, (like Red Lite), that should be criminal. marcolopes. 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. Ontop of that, when enquiring WD, they refuse to clarify whether they are PMR or SMR. The WD40EFAX is demonstrably a worse drive than the CMR based WD40EFRX, and assuming that you have a choice in your purchase the CMR drive is the superior product. The general population does not follow drive technology closely. Just read this bollocks: 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. SMR drive support is getting better when hosts know they are using SMR drives. Absent that context, simply putting the word “SMR” in a product listing does not help an uninformed purchaser choose the correct product. Unfortunately, while the SMR WD Red performed respectably in the previous benchmarks, the RAIDZ resilver test proved to be another matter entirely. In both cases, the WD Red SMR drives would not work for me personally. The drive does say WD40EFRX, but says “WD RED” rather than “WD RED PLUS” as advertised. A great example is I’m guessing the CMR model is an older one as I bought mine a few years ago now. for my house. So take your time and pick your storage depending on your needs. ... WDC WD40EFRX-68N32N0 : 4000,7 GB [2/0/0, sa1] - wd Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. (*)"Jumping off territory" when SSDs hit about 4-5 times the price of the equivalent HDD, then it's time to look at changing what you buy. 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. Learn how your comment data is processed. I truly would like to know in order to make a decision. I passed this article around our office. Do I need an expensive CMR (Ironwolf Helium), a “cheaper” SMR Red NAS drive or will a standard barracuda 8TB SMR “Archive Drive suffice”, for Media (Plex) and Photos. As an individual drive, the WD40EFAX is performing pretty well in these benchmarks. CDN$141.64. QNAP focused community, to share news, hints and discussion about QNAP products and QTS usage. Duplicity or lazy indifference or both? We are going to start with some general benchmarks to try and place the WD Red (WD40EFAX) performance in a larger context. Note that currently, the MAX capacity drive using SMR is the 6TB WD60EFAX, with 3 platters / 6 heads… So… is that it?? There’s an image on WD Red 4TB page which has “WD40EFRX” but only says WD RED. Thanks for testing and reporting! If your drive is not found in this guide, please send me pictures from both, the label and the PCB sides of the HDD (or full model and serial number if you cannot take the pictures) and I'll … Very interesting, very disconcerting. Because in the case of WD40EFAX, they totally left that out of mention and refused to clarify, which is pretty scummy. In online product catalogs keeping the same branding means that it shows as a “newer model” at many retailers. I will also say that a likely part of the problem here is that these are DM-SMR drives that hide the fact they are SMR from the host. I have many WD external drives, and i DON’T WANT any drive with SMR!!! Robert Dole, would be interesting to see RAID rebuild time on a more conventional RAID setup. I was under the misapprehension (along with that sinking feeling) from reporting from other sites that all 3TB WD Reds are SMR when in fact there are two models. WD Red = CMR, WD Pink = SMR. Great article, thanks for the info. You’d be surprised how often we see clients do this panic and put in new drives. Next, we will move on to the tests focused on the WD40EFAX and NAS RAID arrays. 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) First up is the file copy test. So long as there is proper disclosure and people are making an informed choice, then SMR is a valid technology. We had two main areas of testing. Guess I should be happy all mine are EFRX as well…, Someone said this is part of a RACE for BIGGER capacities. From the brief I now know the 3TB drives I bought for my Synology are CMR. I received a phone call from the rep this morning. Period! How often do you force your marathon runners to run sprints just after they’ve finished the marathon? (BTW, if you ask WD how to know the DRIVE MODEL inside an external WD enclosure, they will tell you it’s impossible!!! Background: Great piece STH. Would be worthwhile to at least update the following articles with a warning to avoid SMR HDDs when using ZFS:, Ektich we load test every drive before we replace them in customer systems to ensure we aren’t using a faulty drive. Not that I would use SMR for NAS. The WD40EFAX is demonstrably a worse drive than the CMR based WD40EFRX, and assuming that you have a choice in your purchase the CMR drive is the superior product. How about that? For single drive installations, the WD40EFAX will likely function without issue. 色と容量で公開しているのは 今現在の生産もしくは今後の予定であって 今現在市場にあるもののことではないんだよ New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast. there is no edit, so i may have to delete and repost. We wanted to present a real-world use case with ZFS so our readers have some sense of the impact. corrected thx In these kinds of shorter burst activity workloads, one can see how SMR may be used as a substitute.