Expired Hot Deals

[Newegg] WD Red (NAS) 4TB - OEM - $129.99

  • Last Updated:
  • Aug 10th, 2019 5:09 am
[OP]
Member
Apr 6, 2007
216 posts
122 upvotes
Toronto
death_hawk wrote: I'm not sure I'd buy a 4TB drive at this point.
Even if the cost per TB didn't suck (which it does compared to larger drives) the operating costs of a drive aren't exactly cheap.
So it usually makes more sense to buy the 2nd largest drive that exists so you don't get nailed by the "bleeding edge" tax and you minimize the number of slots in use.

A typical NAS costs about $10-100 per slot. Yes it's a huge range but this covers everything from DIY to "high end all in one" NASes.
So if you average it out to $50, this drive in essence is $45/TB compared to a 10TB which is $35/TB. Plus the 10TB will occupy one slot compared to 2.5 (let's call it 3) for this for roughly the equivalent amount of space.
Not so much an issue if you have infinite expandability, but in most cases you're limited in terms of options of expanding beyond what your current NAS supports.

That said, I'm still sitting on 24x 4TB drives that I still have to deploy.
If I didn't already own them, I'd be buying bigger drives.
Unfortunately I am limited to a 4TB drive as my 4bay drive only supports up to 16TB per volume. So unless I upgrade my NAS, which will be much more expensive, I'm stuck to 4TB for the time being
Deal Expert
Aug 22, 2006
26045 posts
11492 upvotes
btkli wrote: Better yet go buy a desktop drive and see how long it will last in your NAS.
I'd agree with the other guy actually.
Most of my drives aren't NAS drives and they're doing fine.

Source: 500TB of desktop (or rather shucked externals)
btkli wrote:
Unfortunately I am limited to a 4TB drive as my 4bay drive only supports up to 16TB per volume.
it's an expensive test but test it. Preferably with someone else's drives.
Most NAS limits were imposed because that was the largest drive at the time. Many of them work well beyond stated capacities.
[OP]
Member
Apr 6, 2007
216 posts
122 upvotes
Toronto
death_hawk wrote: I'd agree with the other guy actually.
Most of my drives aren't NAS drives and they're doing fine.

Source: 500TB of desktop (or rather shucked externals)
it's an expensive test but test it. Preferably with someone else's drives.
Most NAS limits were imposed because that was the largest drive at the time. Many of them work well beyond stated capacities.
Actually that's not true. There is a limit depending on your CPU architect. For example, my Synology has an older architect that can't support volume sizes over 16TB

https://www.synology.com/en-global/know ... limitation
Deal Addict
Sep 1, 2004
4729 posts
3205 upvotes
btkli wrote: Dude seriously? It's not just a subjective matter. There are much information on this on the internet. It's not just noise a vibrations, that's one one of the few characteristics.
https://blog.synology.com/xmas-wishlist ... -your-nas/

Do some of your own research please, before you comment here like an idiot. Better yet go buy a desktop drive and see how long it will last in your NAS. I have done some testing myself and my desktop drive ran hotter and died in 3 yrs,my NAS drives are all doing well, some of them 6+ yrs old now.
It's a public forum that isn't tech focused. There will always be people who are learning. Don't be so judgmental. We are all there once upon a time.
Deal Expert
Aug 22, 2006
26045 posts
11492 upvotes
btkli wrote: Actually that's not true. There is a limit depending on your CPU architect. For example, my Synology has an older architect that can't support volume sizes over 16TB
That's why I said most.
Some were actually limited for one reason or another but most of the ones I've seen only said 2TB/4TB/whatever because that was the largest drive.
There was some stupidity in the 32bit days with 2TB limits and apparently today with 4TB with Synology for some reason.
Deal Addict
Sep 1, 2004
4729 posts
3205 upvotes
death_hawk wrote: Some were actually limited for one reason or another but most of the ones I've seen only said 2TB/4TB/whatever because that was the largest drive.
There was some stupidity in the 32bit days with 2TB limits and apparently today with 4TB with Synology for some reason.
You can throw 10TB drives in older Synology. But you will have to deal with 16TB volume as maximum.

So you can still do SHR with 4 10TB drives to yield ~28TB usable. But you just have to lay it out as 16TB and 12TB volumes and separate shares accordingly.

But if you think you need a volume bigger than 16TB, you just need to upgrade to a better/more recent Synology with x64 architecture and your volume can go up to 108TB. And other than a few business type application, if you need a 108TB or larger volumes, I don't think you will be shopping for Synology unless you are cash strapped.
[OP]
Member
Apr 6, 2007
216 posts
122 upvotes
Toronto
Xtrema wrote: It's a public forum that isn't tech focused. There will always be people who are learning. Don't be so judgmental. We are all there once upon a time.
I apologise.. it's just when it's explained a few posts before, which a simple yet easily understandable explanation was posted, talking about energy, vibration, RAID optimizations, error rereading, etc... And all the reader argued that these were "subjective" reasons.. just a waste of everyone's time... What's the point of asking these questions when they weren't gonna listen anyways, just do their own research.
Deal Addict
Sep 1, 2004
4729 posts
3205 upvotes
btkli wrote: I apologise.. it's just when it's explained a few posts before, which a simple yet easily understandable explanation was posted, talking about energy, vibration, RAID optimizations, error rereading, etc... And all the reader argued that these were "subjective" reasons.. just a waste of everyone's time... What's the point of asking these questions when they weren't gonna listen anyways, just do their own research.
End of the day, a catastrophic data loss is quick way to learn why that extra $20 is worth it. :D As I myself has learn quite a few time trying to go cheap.
Last edited by Xtrema on Aug 9th, 2019 5:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Expert
Aug 22, 2006
26045 posts
11492 upvotes
djemzine wrote: Unrelated content to this post, but still related to a NAS.
I mean... What do you expect if you're exposing it to the internet?
Deal Addict
Sep 1, 2004
4729 posts
3205 upvotes
death_hawk wrote: I mean... What do you expect if you're exposing it to the internet?
Most likely it'll be one your IoT devices getting pwned and become a trojan inside your network that potentially in the same segment as your NAS.
[OP]
Member
Apr 6, 2007
216 posts
122 upvotes
Toronto
Xtrema wrote: End of the day, a catastrophic data loss is quick way to learn why that extra $20 is worth it. :D As I myself has learn quite a few time trying to go cheap.
I agree.. when my desktop harddrive died, it caused me a lot of headaches, as it wrecked up my RAID array... Anyways, I agree not worth the headache for $20..
Deal Expert
Aug 22, 2006
26045 posts
11492 upvotes
Xtrema wrote: Most likely it'll be one your IoT devices getting pwned and become a trojan inside your network that potentially in the same segment as your NAS.
While true, this is definitely something else you shouldn't expose to the internet.
In fact... you shouldn't expose anything to the internet.
Even most consumer routers barely qualify...

Top