Отзывы о Жесткий диск Western Digital WD Red 3 ТБ WD30EFRX
511 отзывов пользователей o Western Digital WD Red 3 ТБ WD30EFRX
Пользовались
Western Digital WD Red 3 ТБ WD30EFRX?
Поделитесь своим опытом и помогите другим сделать правильный выбор
Астрономад-2CPQH
12.12.2012
1/10
Оценка пользователя
Ужасно
- + Объем и все что заявлено в технических характеристиках. Покупал с расчетом на непрерывное использование, для чего эта серия и предназначена.
- - из 4-х дисков два не проработали и недели. покупал красную серию специально для домашнего NAS.
тепеть жду 21 день экспертизы в гарантии. От такого "качества" не спасает даже RAID 5. думаю, на что можно заменить...
все уже описано в достоинствах и недостатках.
Кварковец-1FTCC
23.04.2013
10/10
Оценка пользователя
Великолепно
отличная модель
- + Хороший, холодный, не шумит. Работает быстро.
- - Не замечено.
Брал для хранения фильмов/музыки/фотографий. Самое то.
ТехноНаблюдатель-6UJET
01.05.2013
10/10
Оценка пользователя
Великолепно
отличная модель
- + относительно шустрый
холодный по сравнению с другими - - пока не выявлены
хороший
Спектроник-5ZLFD
02.01.2013
10/10
Оценка пользователя
Великолепно
- + Тихий, холодный, не вибрирует.
- - Нет, цена справедливая.
Взял в комп, в качестве основного файло-хронилища,...
Квантум-3YLGR
30.08.2012
10/10
Оценка пользователя
Великолепно
- + Объём, отзывчивость, низкая температура, не паркует часто головки.
- - Больше, чем у Green потребление энергии (не критично), цена могла быть чуть ниже, нет 4ТБ модели в ряду.
Первые впечатления - очень холодный, за день работы в тесном самосборном сервере в тумбочке прихожей...
Квазар-1LOXV
06.09.2012
10/10
Оценка пользователя
Великолепно
- + - холодный и тихий
- относительно нетормоз, но я не щупал гринов от WD -- может они такие же. а дешевле. - - 3ТБ не видится в XP/2000 сервер, пришлось ставить vista
копирование около 8ГБ дает скорость около 110..120МБ/с, что менее заявленой 145. Этот винт...
Зета-Орион-9JQUT
15.03.2020
2/10
Оценка пользователя
Ужасно
Очень плохая модель
- + Тихий. Шустрый.
- - Сдох через 2 года. Обсыпался bad block'ами. Ремонт/возврат по гарантии - безуспешен, аналогично...
Гелиос-8EUHN
26.11.2021
4/10
Оценка пользователя
Ужасно
Плохая модель
- + Довольно тихие
- - Медленные, вышли из строя один за други после окончания гарантии, не применимы в synologi
Дроид-6GTNB
22.12.2019
10/10
Оценка пользователя
Великолепно
Отличная модель
- + Нешумный и надежный.
Взял два диска модели WD30EFRX-68EUZN0 в 2013 году, и два диска модели WD30EFRX-68AX9N0 - в 2014.
Диски используются в Sinology NAS. Работают круглосуточно на протяжении 6.5 и 5.5 лет.
Звук работающих дисков слышен,...
Гравитон-8VSUP
09.03.2024
6/10
Оценка пользователя
Плохо
Посредсвенная модель
- + работает
- - 2013 г выпуска, есть блоки 600+, хоть и менее 10шт
Спектроник-3BUMG
04.06.2021
2/10
Оценка пользователя
Ужасно
Очень плохая модель
- + Диск отличный, магазин не очень.
- - Проработал ровно 1 вечер и дальше перестал запускаться. Экспертиза магазина выявила не гарантийный случай по причине...
Вояджер-6BTFA
23.10.2022
10/10
Оценка пользователя
Великолепно
Отличная модель
- + доставка быстро - на следующий день
Кронос-4VPDP
13.12.2023
10/10
Оценка пользователя
Великолепно
Отличная модель
- + Покупался для NAS. Полностью совместим с Qnap (специально выбирался из таблицы совместимости с ОФ сайта). Потому работает исправно
Вояджер-9CHGK
13.12.2023
10/10
Оценка пользователя
Великолепно
Отличная модель
- + цена- качество
ТехноНаблюдатель-6NUBV
13.12.2023
6/10
Оценка пользователя
Плохо
Посредсвенная модель
- - один из трёх hdd WD30EFRX через 56 часов SMART status = BAD
НоваГость-0GONL
20.08.2012
10/10
Оценка пользователя
Великолепно
Here is a quote from a review at pcper.comI'm going to let the cat out of the bag right here and now. Everyone's home RAID is likely an accident waiting to happen. If you're using regular consumer drives in a large array, there are some very simple (and likely) scenarios that can cause it to completely fail. I'm guilty of operating under this same false hope - I have an 8-drive array of 3TB WD Caviar Greens in a RAID-5. For those uninitiated, RAID-5 is where one drive worth of capacity is volunteered for use as parity data, which is distributed amongst all drives in the array. This trick allows for no data loss in the case where a single drive fails. The RAID controller can simply figure out the missing data by running the extra parity through the same formula that created it. This is called redundancy, but I propose that it's not.Since I'm also guilty here with my huge array of Caviar Greens, let me also say that every few weeks I have a batch job that reads *all* data from that array. Why on earth would I need to occasionally and repeatedly read 21TB of data from something that should already be super reliable? Here's the failure scenario for what might happen to me if I didn't: * Array starts off operating as normal, but drive 3 has a bad sector that cropped up a few months back. This has gone unnoticed because the bad sector was part of a rarely accessed file. * During operation, drive 1 encounters a new bad sector. * Since drive 1 is a consumer drive it goes into a retry loop, repeatedly attempting to read and correct the bad sector. * The RAID controller exceeds its timeout threshold waiting on drive 1 and marks it offline. * Array is now in degraded status with drive 1 marked as failed. * User replaces drive 1. RAID controller initiates rebuild using parity data from the other drives. * During rebuild, RAID controller encounters the bad sector on drive 3. * Since drive 3 is a consumer drive it goes into a retry loop, repeatedly attempting to read and correct the bad sector. * The RAID controller exceeds its timeout threshold waiting on drive 3 and marks it offline. * Rebuild fails.At this point the way forward varies from controller to controller, but the long and short of it is that the data is at extreme risk of loss. There are ways to get it all back (most likely without that one bad sector on drive 3), but none of them are particularly easy. Now you may be asking yourself how enterprises run huge RAIDs and don't see this sort of problem? The answer is Time Limited Error Recovery - where the hard drive assumes it is part of an array, assumes there is redundancy, and is not afraid to quickly tell the host controller that it just can't complete the current I/O request.Here's how that scenario would have played out if the drives implemented some form of TLER: * Array starts off operating as normal, but drive 3 has developed a bad sector several weeks ago. This went unnoticed because the bad sector was part of a rarely accessed file. * During operation, drive 1 encounters a new bad sector. * Drive 1 makes a few read attempts and then reports a CRC error to the RAID controller. * The RAID controller maps out the bad sector, locating it elsewhere on the drive. The missing sector is rebuilt using parity data from the other drives in the array. *Array continues normal operation, with the error added to its event log.The above scenario is what would play out with an Areca RAID controller (I've verified this personally). Other controllers may behave differently. A controller unable to do a bad sector remap might have just marked drive 1 as bad, but the key is that the rebuild would be much less likely to fail as drive 3 would not drop completely offline once the controller ran into the additional bad sector. The moral of this story is that typical consumer grade drives have data error timeouts that are far longer than the drive offline timeout of typical RAID controllers, and without some form of TLER, two bad sectors (totaling 1024 bytes) is all that's required to put multiple terabytes of data in grave danger.The Solution:The solution should be simple - just get some drives with TLER. The problem is that until now those were prohibitively expensive. Enterprise drives have all sorts of added features like accelerometers and pressure sensors to compensate for sliding in and out of a server rack while operating, as well as dealing with rapid pressure changes that take place when the server room door opens and the forced air circulation takes a quick detour. Those features just aren't needed in that home NAS sitting on your bookshelf. What *is* needed is a WD Caviar Green that has TLER, and Western Digital delivers that in their new Red drives.End quote and back to reviewer.I've got 5 of these in a Synology DiskStation 5-Bay (Diskless) Network Attached Storage (DS1512+). It is really a sweet setup.The Synology software has a S.M.A.R.T. test that can do surface scans to detect bad sectors. I have their Quick T
Сириус-0THST
29.11.2012
8/10
Оценка пользователя
Хорошо
If you're looking at this review, you're probably in the market for some honkin' big drives to stuff into a server or a NAS box. These Western Digital "Red" series drives are probably a total waste of money if you're planning to put them into a regular PC. If you're not doing a raid array of some kind, then save your money and buy the green or black series drives instead. If you're looking to set up a raid array of some sort, these are a bargain. They aren't the fastest drives, but they are rated to run 24x7 serving up data! Their 3 year warranty is above the current industry standard for consumer hard drives.For my home-made FreeNAS (google it!) NAS/Server, I bought 5 WD Red drives from Adorama (purchased through Amazon) and 1 drive directly from Amazon.The one drive from Amazon came very well packaged, double boxed in what looks like a WD cardboard box with a shock absorbing cradle. Very well packaged for shipment. Honestly, Amazon has been stellar for packaging boxes for shipment.The 5 hard drives from Adorama came in a big box which 'clunked' when it was tilted. Opening the box revealed some big plastic pillow air strips, and 5 loose smaller boxes. Inside each of the smaller boxes was a few pillows and a factory bagged hard drive. There were not enough pillows in each box to securely cushion the hard drives against rattling around, so there's a high likelihood of damage in shipment. BAD SHIPPERS! NO DONUT!Anyway, getting on to the performance of the drives... I'm running 6 drives in a ZFS RaidZ2 array. They are all controlled using an IBM M1015 PCIE 8x SATA 3 controller which has been flashed to be an HBA providing JBOD to the ZFS OS. That's a lotta acronyms! The speed of the array is quite fast... more than fast enough to saturate a gigabit network. I currently have about 5TB of data stored on the 10TB array.On to the bad stuff...One of the drives (I haven't checked the serial number to see which shipper it came from) is starting to give signs of premature failure after about 70 hours of operation. During a scrub of the data pool, drive DA5 is experiencing unreadable sectors. Luckily ZFS is able to calculate the correct values for the corrupted data, and is busily recreating the data onto another part of the drive. ZFS rocks for data reliability! If the drive does turn out to be bad, I have a WD Green 3TB drive that I can put into the array as a hot swap temporarily until the failed drive can be replaced. *UPDATE* The ZFS scrub just finished, and it repaired 1.53MB of data, with no data loss. Did I mention that ZFS rocks?Warning/Advice about Data Storage: Note 1: If you're going to be using these drives, or any data storage device for that matter, make sure that you take into account that these are highly fragile and delicate devices which can be easily damaged in shipment, or just plain up and fail when you least expect it. You really need to use some sort of redundant array of drives so that if one drive fails, your data doesn't vanish. In my case, the final configuration is going to be 6 drives in a RaidZ2 (dual parity striping), which means that my data stays intact and accessible even if 2 drives fail simultaneously. Also, there is going to be a 3TB Green drive as a hot spare that can take over for any failed drive in the array. With the hot-spare, my data can survive the loss of 3 drives without losing data (as long as the failures don't happen all at the same time). Note 2: Always, always, always have a backup. In my case, I have two external 3TB USB3.0 drives which will be used only for backup purposes. Every so often, I'll backup the critical data onto the drives and stash them in my locker at work. If you don't have TrueCrypt, google it and see why your backup removable drives should be using it. If someone steals the drives, they only get the drives and not my data.I'm giving 5 stars for the drives that work... 1 star for the failing drive... averages to about 4 stars score! I'll update this review once I have details on how the drives do in a week or so. Currently it ain't looking too good for drive DA5!
ХроноГость-0ITCQ
18.08.2012
10/10
Оценка пользователя
Великолепно
After about six months of searching for the perfect drive, I finally settled on two of these Western Digital Red 2TB WD20EFRX hard drives. I was ready to purchase HGST enterprise drives, the former Hitachi, but WD came out with these drives just in-time. I wanted to get the 3TB WD30EFRX version for my Synology DS212 NAS, but the price difference didn't make that much of a sense, and 2TB drives are more than enough for a few years of my home office use. I am very happy that these drives MTBFs are rated at 1,000,000 hours, they use less power, and they are cheaper than other enterprise drives.Upon receiving, I immediately installed them in my NAS. It took about 15 minutes to install DSM 4 and begin the inspection process. I neither chose Raid 1, JBOD, or SHR, and I took some online advice and created two separate volumes, one on each disk, to have two independent file systems. In this case, you don't have to worry about rebuilding disk arrays if any drives fail, and you always have a backup present. I was planning on using Folder Sync feature to sync all folders from Disk 1 to Disk 2 every other hour, but I found out this feature only works on two independent Synology Disk Stations; however, you can use automated backup feature to backup data from Disk 1 into Disk 2, and it produces about the same result as Folder Sync does, and it gives you a few more options for backing up system and application files as well.Synology volume creation took about 7 hours for each drive with automatic bad sector reallocation feature. I later tested each drive with S.M.A.R.T extended test--each took about 4 hours--and I am happy to report that I did not have any bad sectors on either of the drives. That is, the "Reallocated Sector Count" reads zero in S.M.A.R.T report.The drives are surprisingly quiet. I had an enterprise RE2 500GB in my NAS, and it was thunderstorm loud compared to these. The temperature is also very reasonable. When the drive is resting it is about 31C/88F, and under heavy usage it rises up to 35C/95F. Although these drives speed are only 5000 rpm, I don't see any difference in file transfer speed. The only downside that I could sense was the startup time from sleep. I feel that compared to my old WD RE2 drive, it takes a good 2 to 5 seconds more for the NAS to come out of sleep each time. Not a deal breaker, but something to consider when you invest in these drives.I think WD has done a good job with these drives, and they are currently the best on the market for home or home office use. That being said, I still think WD RE4 drives are the best enterprise drives and ultimate in performance; however, if you are looking for a good set of drives for your NAS, and the power consumption and noise are important to you, these WD Red drives will work just fine. Compared to desktop drives, these come with a few enterprise features that come in handy and will save you some time and money down the road.
Квантум-8DHHR
05.01.2013
2/10
Оценка пользователя
Ужасно
I bought this WD Red drive to provide backup for my large (data) desktop. I use Windows backup. I paired the drive with a StarTech USB 3.0 enclosure and a Koutech USB 3.0 PCI card (each of which worked fine. I can't say enough positive things about Koutech support, BTW). Tested it for reads and writes: very fast. Then I tried to run backup, and Windows backup failed. Without belaboring the many phone calls and hours of research on the web, the problem is a combination of Microsoft Win 7 inability to handle 4K logical & physical sectors with WD's failure to provide microcode to emulate 512e sectors for this drive. (NB: Windows 8 does support 4K sectors). After a number of emails back and forth - over several weeks - I finally wound up with WD level 2 support who informed me that the drive was intended as an "internal drive" with the implication that I was unreasonable to try to use it as an external drive. Of course, WD markets this as a (and has an approved enclosure list for) NAS drive when it's connected via ethernet. When I queried what a NAS drive was if not an external drive, I was told that it was the USB attachment that created the problem. BTW, level 1 tried to blame the enclosure first, then the USB card, then my motherboard... anybody but them.The good news is that the drive is fast attached as I have it via USB 3.0 and if there were not a specific problem with Microsoft Windows Backup (or some other critical application), it would be fine. The real problem is the marketing language and lack of cautions from WD about a well-known and well-documented problem.(If you want more detail search for "Windows 7 Backup error 0x8078002A" or "4k sectors and windows backup.") Despite what you may read about potential solutions, the WD Quick Formatter cannot find WD Red drives when USB attached. Further, Level 2 WD support assures me that there is no microcode in the WD Red drives which can be used to emulate 512 sectors, so there is no solution.As for now, I have switched backup programs, hardly my favored workaround. But it took so long for WD to get back to me and finally give me a definitive answer that my 30 day window to return the drive passed.As long as you are dealing with applications which are not sensitive to 4K vs 512 sectors, the drive is fine. If there is a dependency, pass it by.
ТерраБот-5JMKX
24.03.2013
6/10
Оценка пользователя
Плохо
Between music, movies, pictures and games our pcs fill fast. Instead of always buying a new machine every 3 or 4 years I've been updating my computer with the latest peripherals and so far so good, until now. I purchased one of the largest drives I could find, unfortunately a 3 terabyte drive only showed as 746 gigabytes on my Windows 7, 32-bit computer. No matter how much I tried formatting with several third-party programs and many hours on line reading Tech Guru suggestions nothing worked or made my computer read the drive's true capacity.I don't want to be unfair about the drive, it seems to be very good (thus the 3 stars), but not everyone who buys a larger hard drive has the newest machine and like me, just needed some extra space on a not so old machine. But there's really no fix out there that works and there should be included at least an install disk that might fix things and set the drive up properly. The drive comes with no software and Western Digital's site is a waste of time to find answers, as you're pretty much just reading a forum of others having the same problem.Is it the motherboard, the way it's formatted, the bios or the operating system? No one seems to know, they only guess at solutions, yet are well aware of the problem and what causes it. No third party program worked for me; some I paid for, others I downloaded free trials, all for naught.I even disconnected my original hard drive and an extra 1.5 terabyte drive I bought only a few years ago and plugged in only the new drive, re-loaded Windows, but still only 746GB showed. Finally enough was enough and it's being returned. Also be aware that there seems to be no such thing as a Sata Data Y cable so make sure you have an extra port on your motherboard to accommodate the drive.I'm not saying everyone will have problems, it just didn't work for me and less than a 3rd capacity drive just doesn't cut it if you're trying to expand your system.
Астрономад-4LOVK
17.08.2012
10/10
Оценка пользователя
Великолепно
Earlier this year, I took a chance purchasing Seagate's new 3TB HD for media storage and it died 2 months later. Since then I've purchased a 3TB Western Digital "RED" drive (I would have picked the WD "BLACK", but the price difference was a deal breaker). It's not in a NAS (just in PC), and with only one month in service I can say that at this point I'm pleased with the drive and it's performance. It's not as noisy, and certainly runs cooler than the dead Seagate, but time will tell.UPDATE: 10-14-12I didn't wait for the six month period to bump it to 5-star status. I didn't mention it before but the dead Seagate was in a USB external housing which is what I put this in. I almost never hear it, and while I haven't been as scientific as some (holding a stop watch, etc.)I have moved many large files to/from it, and then to two other external drives (same file each time) and the "RED" is by far the fastest, making things less time consuming. The others leave me toe-tapping or playing solitare until the transfers are complete. I bought a 2TB, not too long ago and plan to get 2 more 3TB drives before the end of the year. Yes, the RED series has a 3-year limited warranty.UPDATE: 11-17-12The 3TB RED and my 3, 2TB RED's are still very happy campers, on a 24/7 basis. I recently built a PC for a customer and put the 1TB RED in it (about 3 weeks ago) and they are very happy with the build, and the first comment I received was "It's so quiet". Our distributor tried to sway us from using these in anything other than a NAS, remarking that they were too slow, so I did some digging around various tech sites and came up with additional info:Due to it's variable speed, Western Digital upped the MTBF from 650,000 hours to 1,000,0003 year warranty with dedicated 24/7 supportWD doesn't state the actual spin-speed, merely saying it's Intellipower (meaning less than 7,200rpm), and from what I've seen most put it in the 5400 to 5900 RPM range.The Drive's cache memory was upgraded from DDR to DDR2In a test pitting RED against other brand hard drives which run at 7200 RPM, it came out in the middle of the pack on random data tranfers, however, when transferring large media files (in the 20+ GB range) the RED beat the Seagate Barracuda by 2 minutes.UPDATE 12/31/12No problems, runs cool, streams media great. The same goes for the 2- 2TB "RED" label drives in use.UPDATE 02/26/138 months of 24/7 and still going strong (3TB), 6 months of 24/7 and still going strong (2TB). So far, everyone I've recommended these drives to (and bought them) are also "Happy Campers".
Нейрон-8QQVX
29.01.2013
10/10
Оценка пользователя
Великолепно
I will try to keep this short. I have owned over 10 Western Digital hard-drives and I have only ever had one go bad on me, but it was in a very hot slim height PC and that was 5 years ago. These drives have continued the Western Digital legacy (at least for me, maybe I am lucky).I own 4 of the WD Red 2 TB Hard Drives. 2 of the drives I bought here on Amazon, 2 of the drives I bought a week later on the Egg Site...Amazon had decent packaging, Egg had probably more packaging than was needed (and that is never a bad thing when it comes to hard-drives)I installed the first 2 drives, absolutely no problems. I immediately ran long hard drive tests using Seagate Seatools. 5 hours later and the drives are completely fine. I am using these to store large 1080p movie files (18GB's a piece usually). I use one drive to mirror the other using a program called Synchronicity. This is for the simplest (and in my opinion best) form of redundancy.I ran the long harddrive tests every 2 days for the next 6 days and the 2 drives passed completely fine on both of them (they were both nearly full from consolidating my movie collection to these drives).I bought 2 more of these drives on Egg when they were on sale and I had the exact same experience as before, they are perfect.I now have a total of 8TB of storage from these drives. (4TB for storing files, and 4TB for redundancy).Pros:Good value depending on when you buy (I got first batch for $106.99 a piece and the second batch for $99 a piece) I wouldn't pay over $120 for these.Reliable (I have had these for about a month and have ran many long drive tests and have had no errors so far. I will continue to do so and update this review)Cons:I don't have any thing bad to say about these drives.Other Advice:If you receive a drive that wasn't packaged well THEN RETURN IT.You can only blame yourself if you use and don't return a drive that is packaged incorrectly, and then the drive goes bad.
ХроноГость-8WIXD
29.03.2013
8/10
Оценка пользователя
Хорошо
We bought two WD 3TB Reds to go in a Synology DS213 NAS. The drive installed as drive one in a modified Raid 1 array that Synology calls "SHR" has been fine in the month or more it's been running. The second drive crashed after a week. I elected to return it to Western Digital for replacement under their "Advance Replacement" program, whereby they ship the new drive, and one simply returns the defective drive in that packaging. There are several kickers. One is that they put a hold on a credit card until they get the old drive returned, and it's for $250- much more than the going price on Amazon, so be sure to return it within the 30 days given. The other caveat is that shipping the old drive back is on you. That will currently run $15 insured to return the drive UPS.Anyhow, I promptly received the replacement drive, installed it (this is extremely easy in the Synology NAS), and lo and behold, although it ran normally it would not pass the extended S.M.A.R.T. test. I notified WD, and they asked if I wanted to replace it. I stated that I did not if it meant I was going to have to pay for shipping a second time. They sent me a new drive (that had been pre-tested) plus a prepaid return shipping label. This new drive is installed and running fine.The WD Red series is designed to run in NAS applications, and presumably it does. I give the highest marks here to Western Digital for how the problem I had was handled. All manufactured products have a certain number of defective units, nobody can do anything about that. The real test of a manufacturer is how they deal with such issues, and that went very well in my case.
Фотон-4FWSY
21.01.2013
8/10
Оценка пользователя
Хорошо
I just got a couple of these 3TB WD Red drives a week ago! If you want some nice drives for your NAS these are it! Recommended for 1 to 5 drive bay systems. My new NAS has 4 bays so I'm using 2 of them right now. Formatted you get 2.7TB from them! You want a HDD that is guaranteed to support a NAS, these WD Red drive are them!!!The are Basically Green drives and yet so much more! They are much faster yet use less Power then other drives and have less heat. They also have a 3 year warranty and their own phone number to call if you have any problems. So the little higher price is worth the longer warranty of these over the other drives. These have software designed to work in a NAS environment that other HDD can have issues with!NAS's are a fast growing market right now I think. Since they need Hard Drives, I'm surprised WD is the only ones out with these RED NAS drives. I'm sure others are working on their own versions for this growing market. If you want to sell HDD's, especially the 3.5" ones, because Laptops and whatnot is the growing market and they take 2.5" drives or going with SSD drives.Both of my drives worked problem free. Just mounted to the frames and popped them into my NAS and the NAS did the rest on it's own. Simple easy!!! Lower power saves you money in electricity over the years using it and less heat means longer lasting drives! How can you go wrong?So how do these really stack up in Comparison to other HDD? Well when it comes to Hardware Reviews everyone knows anandtech.com right! Check it out.[...]Toms Hardware is also another great review site. Check out their review of these Red drives![...]
Показаны отзывы 193-216 из 511.
