Jump to content


Photo

WD Black HDD Enhancements Announced Discussion


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#1 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,207 posts

Posted 10 October 2013 - 09:17 AM

Major updates usually come at capacity bumps but WD has improved the Black line by as much as 48% with the latest update.

WD Black HDD Enhancements Announced

Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#2 mike2h

mike2h

    Member

  • Member
  • 258 posts

Posted 10 October 2013 - 12:21 PM

are the re drives receiving the same enhancements?

#3 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,207 posts

Posted 10 October 2013 - 12:57 PM

That would make sense but we do not yet have any guidance on those.

Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#4 continuum

continuum

    Mod

  • Mod
  • 3,540 posts

Posted 10 October 2013 - 01:53 PM

FINALLY!!

Now to wait for reviews... :D

#5 [ETA]MrSpadge

[ETA]MrSpadge

    Member

  • Member
  • 737 posts

Posted 10 October 2013 - 02:13 PM

So, as always no word on platter density and count. But they packed more processing power in there and hence increased performance drastically. Which, on the other hand, means their current Blacks for hundreds of $ are horribly limited by their controllers and could actually perform much faster. What a massive fail on their end!

May I suggest that most of the increased performance actually stems from finally going from 500 - 800 GB platters to 1 TB platters? The increased tracking accuracy they're talking about is probably just neccessary to enable this density at 7.2k rpm.

MrS

#6 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,207 posts

Posted 10 October 2013 - 02:43 PM

Platter count question is in already, waiting for a response. Also review unit request is in, drives haven't shipped to us yet.

Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#7 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,207 posts

Posted 10 October 2013 - 04:08 PM

Here's the platter breakdown.

1TB (one single 1TB platter)
2TB (three x 800GB platters)
3TB (four x 800GB platters)
4TB (five x 800GB platters)

Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#8 Mkruer

Mkruer

    Member

  • Member
  • 283 posts

Posted 10 October 2013 - 09:21 PM

Here's the platter breakdown.

1TB (one single 1TB platter)
2TB (three x 800GB platters)
3TB (four x 800GB platters)
4TB (five x 800GB platters)


This is good and bad
Good because it should easy to bench and find out just how much a firmware/hardware improve the drive.
Bad because if they also increased the platter density they would have picked up even more throughput.
Lian-Li PC-V2000 Plus Aluminum Case; Seasonic S12 Energy+ 550 PSU; Asus M4A785TD-V EVO; Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition C3 @ 4.0Ghz ; Thermalright Ultra-120 eXtreme Rev.C; 8GB OCZ AMD Black Edition @ 1333Mhz; Creative Audigy 2 ZS; Sapphire Radeon HD 5770; 1xOCZ Vertex 2 OCZSSD3-2VTX180G; 1xWestern Digital Caviar Black WD1001FALS 1TB; 2xWestern Digital Caviar Green WD20EADS 2TB; Western Digital WDG1U3200 My Book Essential Edition 320GB USB 2.0; Samsung STORY Station 2TB USB 3.0.

#9 ChrisMcPole

ChrisMcPole

    Member

  • Member
  • 132 posts

Posted 10 October 2013 - 10:19 PM

Here's the platter breakdown.

1TB (one single 1TB platter)
2TB (three x 800GB platters)
3TB (four x 800GB platters)
4TB (five x 800GB platters)


Frankly, I would never want another non-1TB-per-platter drive, ever.

#10 fzabkar

fzabkar

    Member

  • Member
  • 31 posts

Posted 11 October 2013 - 01:05 AM

I fail to see where the enhancements are.

If we were to take a Seagate 1TB-per-platter AF drive, its maximum sustained data rate at 7200RPM is 210MB/s. Now let's assume that we reduce the platter density to 500GB and allow all other things to remain equal. This means that the capacity would be halved, and that there would be a reduction in the number of bits per track by a factor of 1/sqrt(2), and a similar reduction in the number of tracks per inch.

Since the maximum transfer rate is directly related to the number of bits per track, then we would expect an equivalent Seagate 500GB-per-platter AF drive to have a transfer rate of ...

210 / sqrt(2) = 148.5 MB/s

Therefore ISTM that WD's current models perform only marginally better than last generation's Seagate drives.

Furthermore, if we were to reduce a 1TB-per-platter Seagate drive to 800GB-per-platter, then its transfer rate would be ...

210 / sqrt(1TB / 800GB) = 210 / sqrt(1.25) = 188MB/s.

This is still more than 10% faster than WD's drives.

#11 Wark0

Wark0

    Member

  • Member
  • 1 posts

Posted 11 October 2013 - 02:14 AM

Hi

http://www.hardware....t-aft-512e.html

The change from FAEX to FZEX seems to be a firmware update to use Advanced Format 512e on the platter. With AFT density is higher, so the sequential speed is.

#12 fzabkar

fzabkar

    Member

  • Member
  • 31 posts

Posted 11 October 2013 - 02:33 AM

So the 1TB model must have two 500GB platters, not a single 1TB platter as claimed in "the platter breakdown"?

And how can WD claim that the new 4TB models have a 48% performance increase over the earlier versions? I see only 11%.

171 / 154 = 1.11

A figure of 11% is consistent with the bits-per-track increase for AF models over their non-AF counterparts.

#13 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,207 posts

Posted 11 October 2013 - 02:58 PM

We got that from WD...


Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#14 Mkruer

Mkruer

    Member

  • Member
  • 283 posts

Posted 11 October 2013 - 07:10 PM

Its probably like the CPUs when they say 48% performance increase they are referring to only one component (the controller) not the overall performance of the drive.


Lian-Li PC-V2000 Plus Aluminum Case; Seasonic S12 Energy+ 550 PSU; Asus M4A785TD-V EVO; Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition C3 @ 4.0Ghz ; Thermalright Ultra-120 eXtreme Rev.C; 8GB OCZ AMD Black Edition @ 1333Mhz; Creative Audigy 2 ZS; Sapphire Radeon HD 5770; 1xOCZ Vertex 2 OCZSSD3-2VTX180G; 1xWestern Digital Caviar Black WD1001FALS 1TB; 2xWestern Digital Caviar Green WD20EADS 2TB; Western Digital WDG1U3200 My Book Essential Edition 320GB USB 2.0; Samsung STORY Station 2TB USB 3.0.

#15 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,207 posts

Posted 11 October 2013 - 07:29 PM

We will know soon...4TB drives hopefully inbound soon.

Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#16 FastMHz

FastMHz

    Member

  • Member
  • 403 posts

Posted 11 October 2013 - 07:46 PM

Here's the platter breakdown.

1TB (one single 1TB platter)
2TB (three x 800GB platters)
3TB (four x 800GB platters)
4TB (five x 800GB platters)

 

It doesn't make any sense to me why a manufacturer would use less than 1TB platters for any drive 1TB and over.  I won't buy them either.


Production: Vishera 8350/32gb RAM/Dual SSD/VelociRaptor/Radeon 7750
Gaming: Phenom II 955/16gb RAM/SSD/VelociRaptor/Radeon 7950
Retro: K6-2 550/256mb RAM/160gb HDD/CompactFlash/3DFX/ATI AIW Pro/SB16/DB50XG
http://www.fastmhz.com

#17 dietrc70

dietrc70

    Member

  • Member
  • 106 posts

Posted 11 October 2013 - 10:17 PM

What the heck is a "high resolution controller?"  Is it like "blast processing" for hard drives?

 

I think tech writers need to be more critical of this kind of technobabble.  Is WD no longer using Marvell controllers in favor of an in-house design?  How does increased processor performance improve tracking precision, as opposed to improving tracking speed?  Those would be interesting questions to answer, but as it is they might as well have said that the drives now have more "warp cores," and are like...faster, so buy them you silly sheep.


#18 dietrc70

dietrc70

    Member

  • Member
  • 106 posts

Posted 11 October 2013 - 10:25 PM

 

It doesn't make any sense to me why a manufacturer would use less than 1TB platters for any drive 1TB and over.  I won't buy them either.

It's not elegant, but there are possible reasons:

1)  Short stroking for higher performance

2)  More platters, faster sequential read/write

3.) Less aerial density--less demanding tracking/error correction, and possible speed increases.

4.) WD has a lot of 800GB platters they want to get rid of...


#19 unityole

unityole

    Member

  • Member
  • 43 posts

Posted 11 October 2013 - 11:05 PM

good to know SR getting a quick sample on this imo WD HDDs desktop lineup is just way too expensive.  anyway I'm still hoping to see some 4k sequential read/write tests at QD1 being done, not just some ATTO defaults at QD4 which is unrealistically faster.  I use these big drives to transfer and storage files so I wanna know speed at high sequential, and small block sequential too.

 

onto waiting for the review.


#20 [ETA]MrSpadge

[ETA]MrSpadge

    Member

  • Member
  • 737 posts

Posted 12 October 2013 - 02:38 AM

Since a long time manufacturers have preferred 5x800 GB over 4x1000 GB at 7.2k rpm. Even Seagate does 3x1000 at 7.2k rpm and 4x1000 only at 5.9k rpm. It could well be that the vibration generated by spinning multiple platters currently becomes too much at 4x1000 and high rpm. This would lead to pretty bad access times, which is something the Black and RE can't afford. Well, actually the 1st gen 4 TB Black had significantly worse access time than it's 2 TB predecessor.

 

2)  More platters, faster sequential read/write

Uhm.. no! At any given point in time data is only read/written from/to a single platter in traditional HDDs. No interleaving or parallel access happens, since they've only got 1 motor for the actuators anyway. In the 90's Seagate tried several motors, but it was far too complex and expensive and quickly overtaken by simpler drives with denser platters.

 

What the heck is a "high resolution controller?"

It's a vague description, for sure, but I have no problem understanding it as "the higher processing power in the new controller enables more accurate tracking, which improves the drives performance". It will be interesting if they finally got back to random performance of the Blacks with 500 GB/platter :D

BTW: that 48% must be something else than STR, which obviously can't change much with just a switch to AF.

 

@Unityole: sequential 4k acess? Any software doing this (and failing to bundle those requests into larger blocks) should be probably be kicked right into its.. code. Random 4k at QD=1, on the other hand, happens sometimes in the real non-server world.

 

MrS


#21 unityole

unityole

    Member

  • Member
  • 43 posts

Posted 12 October 2013 - 03:12 AM

@Unityole: sequential 4k acess? Any software doing this (and failing to bundle those requests into larger blocks) should be probably be kicked right into its.. code. Random 4k at QD=1, on the other hand, happens sometimes in the real non-server world.

 

MrS

 

@MrSpadge its good to have 4k random but since I'm using my HDD as storage, not OS drive I don't need high 4k random speed.  I need high 4k blocksize sequential read and write because many of my files are small file size, and backing them up at 5-20 MB/s isnt fun.  going back to my original post it is unfortunate reviews don't cover this area.  sites using ATTO shows all block size sequential read/write but at queue depth of 4, which is unrealistically faster than queue depth of 1 (transfering files).  HD Tune shows sequential read/write at QD 1 for different block size as well but most sites only do it at either block size 64/128 kb, or at 2 MB,

 

I wanted to see the speed at queue depth of 1, at block size of 4 kb or smaller to have a good idea which drive can perform well for for my needs, otherwise reading reviews for some benchmark numbers and none for real world usage is simply pointless.


Edited by unityole, 12 October 2013 - 03:14 AM.

#22 dietrc70

dietrc70

    Member

  • Member
  • 106 posts

Posted 12 October 2013 - 03:53 AM

Uhm.. no! At any given point in time data is only read/written from/to a single platter in traditional HDDs. No interleaving or parallel access happens, since they've only got 1 motor for the actuators anyway. In the 90's Seagate tried several motors, but it was far too complex and expensive and quickly overtaken by simpler drives with denser platters.

 

MrS

 

 

Thanks!  I knew there was only one motor, but I had assumed that the heads read in parallel.  I believe the old MFM drives did read that way, but those were super-low density platters with armatures driven by stepping motors, so it was expected that the heads would all line up with the same cylinder.


#23 [ETA]MrSpadge

[ETA]MrSpadge

    Member

  • Member
  • 737 posts

Posted 13 October 2013 - 04:01 AM

Unityole, that makes more sense to me now. Are you already doing incremental backups? Not needing to transfer files is of course the fastest way :)

It would also help a lot to pack them into simple zip files.. although in that case they have to be ready for archieving and not frequently being worked on any more.

 

MrS


#24 dietrc70

dietrc70

    Member

  • Member
  • 106 posts

Posted 13 October 2013 - 01:08 PM

 

@MrSpadge its good to have 4k random but since I'm using my HDD as storage, not OS drive I don't need high 4k random speed.  I need high 4k blocksize sequential read and write because many of my files are small file size, and backing them up at 5-20 MB/s isnt fun.

 

 

Have you tried robocopy with multithreading enabled?  (i.e. /MT:n)


#25 unityole

unityole

    Member

  • Member
  • 43 posts

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:30 PM

 

Have you tried robocopy with multithreading enabled?  (i.e. /MT:n)

what is robo copy?

 

 

 

Unityole, that makes more sense to me now. Are you already doing incremental backups? Not needing to transfer files is of course the fastest way :)

It would also help a lot to pack them into simple zip files.. although in that case they have to be ready for archieving and not frequently being worked on any more.

 

yes packing small files into zip files is generally the way I do things but only for long term backup that doesn't need constant changes. thing is I am always making file arrangement as well as copying stuff, benching and doing various different things to my hard drives.

 

It's kinda like a really good bonus to have when you know your smaller block size can transfer fast..  and I just found this out today that my HDD can transfer faster via esatap port to an esatap enclosure.  my seagate HDD was able to do 80MB/s read/write at 4k block sequential where my WD blackscorpio in my computer sata port only able to do 35, was going at 55 in the esatap enclosure, pretty weird.


Edited by unityole, 13 October 2013 - 10:37 PM.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users