BUILD Seagate Barracuda vs. WD Red

[Destinova]

I'm in the process of getting some drives into an older box to set up as a FreeNas - it will be general use, some media streaming, file server, and storage for an ESXi server. No real intense iops requirements (no databases).

The motherboard is an older one, it's an Intel DP35DP with an Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 and 8GB of RAM. I plan to use ZFS.

I'm seeing the new WD Red series are "optimized" for NAS application. How do these compare to the Seagate Barracudas? It strikes me as odd that a 5400 rpm drive is meant for a NAS.

Are there any pros/cons to either of these drives? I'm thinking it's a no-brainer to get the 7200 rpm Seagates for less money?

Seagate 2TB Barracuda - ST2000DM001 - $94.50
Western Digital 2TB Red - WD20EFRX - $107.99

Thanks!

 

[tjo]

WD also has the 'WD Se' which are 7200 rpm. More money but faster then their red line.

"Optimal storage for NAS and scale-out architectures"

http://www.wdc.com/en/products/catalog/default.aspx?segment=1

 

[Caesar]

I went with WD red so I would not have to hide the fact that these drives were in a NAS server if I have to RMA one of them and they have a 3yr warranty period.

 

[budmannxx]

There's a bunch of good debate around here about HDDs, which to get, whether to spin down or leave running 24/7, etc. With the reds, you're basically paying for a) a longer warranty and b) drives that are designed to be spinning 24/7. You can decide how much you value those things. Personally, my server sees usage similar to what yours will, and if the WD reds had been available back when I built it, I definitely would have gone with them.

I also don't think you're going to notice the difference between 5400 and 7200 rpm drives with a relatively small number drives in a ZFS pool. I'd imagine that your sharing protocols and network will be a bigger bottleneck.