Guest Eugene

Western Digital Caviar RE2 WD4000YR

Recommended Posts

Please tell me what the worst thing is that can happen if I run the WD4000YR in a non-RAID environment.

Data loss? Or maybe just an error message every now and then. All I hear is that It's not recommended...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I just got off the phone with Tier 2 support at WD and they said that onboard RAID controllers such as NF4 or in my case, i875 intel chipsets with ICH5R, will work great with these drives in either RAID 0 or 1.

I'm ordering 2 for RAID 0. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had just ordered two for RAID1, but i'll test a single disk in heavy read/write operations in order to know what appen in a single drive scenario. I hope to receive HDs during this week. Stay tuned ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys ! :D I'm new here. I was reading and following this topic for a while now. I was waiting for someone to test the WD4000YR under heavy load. Nobody has done this so I didn't knew which drive to get. Because Western Digital does not recommend the WD4000YR in a non Raid System because of the TLER feature. However I bought the WD4000YR and it is running since 2 days under heavy load. I had none system crashes. The drive is blazing fast and it is worth every single cent ! :) I decided to go with the 5 year warantee. Of course the WD4000KD is not bad, but for those who get later a second WD4000YR can make an Raid array which would not work with the WD4000KD, or not as good. I didn't had any Raid experience yet. The drive is not loud. You can hear it working though, but I have to say my case is opened on the side panel. I use the A8N-SLI Deluxe Mainboard from Asus. I only had the problem that the drive didn't boot the operating system on the beginning, but I think the Cable was not enough attached to it. I was even able to transfer my entire Windows from my old IDE drive to my new WD4000YR SATA drive with Norton Ghost 2003.

@BassKozz

There is not much of a difference. The WD4000KD got only 3 years of warantee, and the WD4000KD does not have the TLER feature (won't let the drive fall for long time into a recovery mode). And the WD4000KD doesn't support NCQ. That's all I can think of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys,

i am new here amd found the discussion on the WD REII 400GB very interesting.

I have been using those for some time now without problems. In Raid and single mode.

No probs at all.

When i had to choose a brand and type for HD's my decision was between the Maxtor Maxline III 300 GB and the WD REII 400 GB.

Both come with 5 years of warranty which is very important imho.

I chose the WD REII because of the warranty and the big raid i wanted to build on a 3Ware Xor 8506 12-port Sata controller.

TLER (time limited error recovery) as i understand it, is quite simply a shortened timespan the disk will try to recover data that already is corrupted, or is in the process of going corrupted.

Instead of trying for minutes, like desktop drives, the TLER will try for 7 seconds to recover data from possibly bad sectors.

Western Digital says so in the 2178-001031.pdf :

What is time-limited error recovery and why do I need it?

A: Desktop drives are designed to go to great lengths to protect and recover data, at times pausing for as much as a few minutes to make sure that data is recovered. Inside a RAID system where the RAID controller handles error recovery, the drive does not need to pause for extended periods to recover data. In fact, heroic error recovery attempts can cause a RAID system to think the drive has failed and drop it out

of the array. WD Caviar RE is engineered to prevent hard drive error recovery fallout by limiting the time the drive spends in error recovery.

With error recovery factory set to seven seconds, the drive has time to attempt a recovery, allow the RAID controller to log the error, and still stay online.

So, what do i think we are talking about ?

The TLER *only* plays a role when the drive has problems.

Quite specific problems too - whenever 7 seconds for a single sector is not enough to repair it you have bad sectors. Mark the bad sector as bad and go on.

That is why i opt for 5-year warranty.

( there are only 2 kinds of harddisks - those that have failed and those that will fail )

Yes, you may loose data.

But how much of that ? Unless your drive is failing, just 1 sector worth...

And what if the 'desktop' version has a bad sector ?

What can a drive do in minutes with a sector that cannot be done in 7 secs ?

In 7 secs a sector can be re-read incredibly often, and the value that is returned (if any) most often is hopefulle the correct one. Why spend minutes ?

That's why i make backups... and for the 'static' data i store i use quickpar as extra security.

Costs me 10% of diskspace per MB stored, and adds loads of added data security, as well as a data integrity check. Allows me to check and restore damaged data on-the-fly, in seconds, as opposed to restoring backups.

Theoretically i see no problems in using the REII in a non-raid environment.

Practically .. well i have not had a REII failing yet - the 1.2 million hours MTBF is one other reason i opted for the REII. And the REII's have been working for quite a while now without problems for me. In a 12 disk raid5 array, and as stand-alone disks in raid1 (mirror) for my system disks.

Where do i come off kinda contradicting WD's tech advice on this ?

Well, i do not.. not really. Since WD gives no good explanation for their advice, i am left to my own to try and figure out this stuff.

The above reasoning is just my personal point of view i wanted to post here to see what your opinion is.

Best regards and keep up these cool discussions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:rolleyes:

Hi,

When a person needs 7/24 disk performance at home? Well, if you are using eDonkey2000 you certainly will! Because, if you are using an ordinary Seagate 7200rpm 160 or 200GB with 8mb cache you will lost your precious .part and .part.met files if you shut down Windows XP, without first closing EDonkey2000 program. At that time hours and hours of wait for the films, utilities, mp3s etc. will be lost. WDC RE Drives 7~8sec gap for the write check provides, any unsaved or uncompleted data to be saved, expecially for the .part and .part.met files. It doesn't matter if you have a backup power, some Windows updates automatically restarts the Computer without asking for permission. If eDonkey2000 is working, tataaa!... forget about some files of about 20~50 in some cases. :P

It doesn't matter if your system has ECC memory or not. ECC %10~20 provides better safety but not enough for the disk I/O intensive server class work. I am using 850E chipset with 2GB ECC memory with 250GB WDC RE drive and now I am fine with it. eDonkey2000 needs at least 1GB of Ram it your downloads list has more than 200 files in rank. Processor power can be 2GHz or more. HT is advisable. 3066HT processor is doing fine for me right now. B)

For those who uses such programs MUST use such 7/24 drives by WDC or Maxtor if you are running your computer 100hours or more for sharing files! :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When a person needs 7/24 disk performance at home? Well, if you are using eDonkey2000 you certainly will! Because, if you are using an ordinary Seagate 7200rpm 160 or 200GB with 8mb cache you will lost your precious .part and .part.met files if you shut down Windows XP, without first closing EDonkey2000 program. At that time hours and hours of wait for the films, utilities, mp3s etc. will be lost. WDC RE Drives 7~8sec gap for the write check provides, any unsaved or uncompleted data to be saved, expecially for the .part and .part.met files.

Hi Cemal,

i think you are confusing a few things here.

The 7 second TLER is a period during which the drive tries to recover damaged sectors.

You may be referring to the windows cache or disk cache ?

Both are flushed ( data is written from cache to disk ) when Windows is shut down.

This does not affect Edonkey files, in positive or negative way.

I do not wish to undermine your current feeling of security but my best advise would be to always close Edonkey before a shutdown or reboot.

BTW, you can configure Automatic Updates to, for instance "Download updates for me, but let me choose when to install them" to avoid automatic reboots. Look here for a how-to.

Hope this helps !

Best regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WD claims a 1.2 million hour MTBF for the RE2 and a 600,000 hour MTBF for the SE16. Why the difference? Can weeding out drives that may prematurely fail with a burn-in period that runs 24 hours rather than 8 really account for such a difference?

Certainly. But it doent mean the drive probably would last longer. Contradictive? No, not if you look at the way MTBF realy are calculated. MTBF is NOT an estimation of how long a drive wil live. It's a estimate of the risk of failure within a certain period of time. Lets say 24 hours use since i dont know WDs practice on this. If MTBF is estimated to be 1,2 million hours, you could expect one in 1,2 million disks to die each hour the next 24 hours. In other words 24 out of 1,2 million drives wil probably die within 24 hours.

The risk of drives dieing is at the first moments of "burn in" is very high. The disks with serious errors wil likely die within minutes. The risk drops as time goes. 8 hours of "burn in" is obvously enough for MTBF = 0,6 million hours. Further 16 hours of "burn in" makes a few more disks fail so the momentarly MTBF can be 1,2 million hours. Since many disks fail very early and the risk drops, the MTBF altså drops with more "burn in". Note: MTBF is a expectation of failure within a certain period of time, and not a estimation of how long a disk will last. After long usage the disk probably will get problems not accounted for in a 24 hours "burn in test". Like wear out of bearings, evaporation of oil in FDB, electromigration in the curciuits and so on.

MTBF gives in my opinion a false expectation of disk lifetime. So dont expext a drive with MTBF = 1,2 million hours to last 1,2 million hours. (= 137 years). And dont even expect a 137 disk Raid0-array to last about one year. It's far to optimistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MTBF gives in my opinion a false expectation of disk lifetime.

I agree. But it does give an indication of the expected reliability, and where info on design lifespan is missing it can be useful - but as indication only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 888

An interesting find:

Here in SR performance database:

Idle Noise comparison:

Western Digital Caviar RE2 WD4000YR with NCQ (400 GB SATA) - 45.2 dB/A

Western Digital Caviar RE2 WD4000YR no NCQ (400 GB SATA) - 45.2 dB/A

Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD4000KD with NCQ (400 GB SATA) - 40.1 dB/A

Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD4000KD no NCQ (400 GB SATA) - 40.1 dB/A

So, when they are actually the same construction, then WHAT makes the noise levels so much different??? Just wondering now... Can it be true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Eugene
An interesting find:

Here in SR performance database:

Idle Noise comparison:

Western Digital Caviar RE2 WD4000YR with NCQ (400 GB SATA) - 45.2 dB/A

Western Digital Caviar RE2 WD4000YR no NCQ (400 GB SATA) - 45.2 dB/A

Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD4000KD with NCQ (400 GB SATA) - 40.1 dB/A

Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD4000KD no NCQ (400 GB SATA) - 40.1 dB/A

So, when they are actually the same construction, then WHAT makes the noise levels so much different??? Just wondering now... Can it be true?

This is why I always encourage people to read the articles and not just draw a conclusion on the numbers.

http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200510/WD4000YR_6.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 888

Yes I have read this review, and I read that page carefully once again now. The only thing there you talk about fluctuation of noise level between 42 and 45 dB for WD4000YR. But as there's no review for WD4000KD available it remains a bit questionable how is that 40 dB comparable with the given 45 dB of YR model? Was it also selected the highest noise result taken for KD (like it is for YR) or was it happened just the lowest result measured of?

Because of 40 and 45 dB are pretty noticeable difference (almost from top to bottom for today's drives), it's good to know if in fact there was some real difference or was it caused just by these fluctuations of noise level, noise character and noise spectrum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both measurements are the peak of the noise... I'd say the KD doesn't share that fluctuation in noise, and that the difference between the KD's 40 dB/A and the YR's 42 dB/A base level is down to sample variance. Even so, a 5 dB/A difference in peak noise is perceived as about 50% louder, and that's a big difference for two drives that are supposed to be mechanically identical.

Perhaps the two samples received use different motors - I recall that the Samsung P80 models came with either JVC or Nidec motors, and the difference in sound was significant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently purchased the WD4000YR for use in a non-RAID configuration. I have seen faster load times for gaming than my previous drive (western digital P-ATA 80GB, unsure which model)

So far the drive has been exceptionally fast, no errors or any problems.

I would recommend this drive to anyone, for a single hdd or RAID based system!

My PC Specs:

Asus P4P800-E Deluxe

Intel 3.0E HT

WD4000YR

OCZ Premier Series 1x512 DDR400 DC

BFG 6600GT OC AGP8x

Hope this helps answer your questions!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I recently purchased the WD4000YR for use in a non-RAID configuration. I have seen faster load times for gaming than my previous drive (western digital P-ATA 80GB, unsure which model)

So far the drive has been exceptionally fast, no errors or any problems.

I would recommend this drive to anyone, for a single hdd or RAID based system!

My PC Specs:

Asus P4P800-E Deluxe

Intel 3.0E HT

WD4000YR

OCZ Premier Series 1x512 DDR400 DC

BFG 6600GT OC AGP8x

Hope this helps answer your questions!

EDIT: "OCZ Premier Series 1x512 DDR400 DC" should read 2x512

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just installed a WD4000YR on a non raid system and cannot format the drive !!!

My motherboard is a MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum nVIDIA® nForce3 Ultra Chipset.

Can get the disk to be recognised, add the partition, but having tried several ways to format the disk without success (still shown as a RAW File) I am about to give up. Not a success unless I am doing something fundamentally wrong !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorted it my SATA 1 & 2 ports on my motherboard were for some reason not working properly. Swapped it to Port 4 formatted straight away, loaded Windows XP and it is working fantastic. I will report how it runs over the next few weeks in a non raid array.

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to upgrade XP to SP1 or later to support drives greater than 128 binary GB (137 decimal GB).

Troubleshooting questions should preferably be posted in the computing forum - they'll get more views and answers that way, and it keeps the article discussion threads more focused on the drive model in question.

That said, welcome to SR!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey everyone,

Once and for all, the difference between the WD4000YR and the WD4000KD is simple marketing.

They are the exact same hard drives and come off the exact same assembly line. That's why Western Digital is so vague on the differences between the drives. They don't want to screw up the marketing of their "enterprise" line by saying it's the same basic thing as a "desktop" drive. I don't blame them... instead of people thinking "wow, this 'desktop' drive is just as good as their 'enterprise' drives!" the perception would be "lame, they're just taking a plain 'desktop' drive and labeling it as 'enterprise class'".

The ONLY physical difference between the two models is that the "enterprise" class WD4000YR limits the error checking to 7 seconds because they're supposed to be connected to a RAID card that will take care of the error checking. Your cheesy little RAID-1 chip built into your motherboard is not good enough. They're expecting you to connect it to a real RAID card, something that can do RAID-5 type setups in the hardware.

The extra couple of dollars you pay for the WD4000YR is basically paying for a 5-year warranty instead of the 3-year warranty that the WD4000KD has and some extra testing. The YR goes to a longer "burn in" or testing time than the KD does before it leave the factory. That allows them to weed out a higher percentage of problem drives and claim an higher mean time between failures.

So anyone buying the WD4000YR with no plans of hooking it up to a fancy RAID controller and using it in a RAID array is being silly. Just use the WD4000KD to try to avoid the possibilities of losing a huge chunk of data because of the lack of bulit-in error checking in the YR... IF it ever starts to develop bad sectors. The KD will be just as reliable (or not) as a YR drive if you plan on using it 24/7.

If you're really that worried about having a drive that is less likely to die, then your only real choice is to go SCSI. For most of us, it's just not that big the big bucks for SCSI disks. Just keep current backups and you'll be okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is important to clarify what WD means when they are talking about RAID which becomes clear, when you read their TLER specs.

Let's look at some situations when a bad sector is encountered:

  1. without TLER:
    • non-RAID controller: the drive detects the error and tries to recover it (this can last up to 1 or 2 minutes if the drive is otherwise busy, but usually works within a few seconds). While the drive tries to read this sector the issuing process in the computer "hangs" until the recovery is sucessful/fails (-> error is log) or a timeout period is exceeded (I think about a minute in XP).
    • RAID controller: the drive detects the error and tries to recover it (like above this can take a while). After about 8 seconds the RAID controller patience times out ;) and it identifies this drive as "defective". This can lead to different results depending on the type of RAID. E.g. for a RAID-0 this is fatal and the array is unusable; a RAID-1 or -5 gets put into degraded mode and loses it's redundancy and performance. Even if the drive can recover the error later the drive will still be marked as faulty and a complete rebuild of the array is necessary!

[*]with TLER:

  • non-RAID controller: the drive detects the error and tries to recover it, but if the error couldn't be fixed within 7 seconds the drive reports an error back to the controller. Contrary to popular belief the drive doesn't abandon the recovery process after those 7 seconds, but remembers the error and waits for further recovery instructions. Since a normal controller doesn't know anything about error recovery the drive after some time will try again to recover and remap the bad sector (in background). Meanwhile when the controller got the error message the OS logs a disc error and/or notifies the user. The issuing process hangs for a maximum of 7 seconds and the operation fails, if the repair wasn't possible within those 7 seconds.
  • RAID-controller: again the drive detects the error and starts its recovery. If this isn't completed within 7 seconds the RAID-controller get an error notification and the drive waits for further recovery instructions. The controller can now start its own recovery methods: for a RAID-1 this is a simple task of reading the data from the other drive; for RAID-5 this involves recalculating the data from the parity information. Meanwhile the RAID-controller can start a conversation with the drive about the status of the error and they can work on a solution together. This may sound strange, but believe me, modern RAID-controller and drives have very sophisticated methods of recovery. In case of a redundant array (e.g. RAID-1/-5) the controller can tell the drive what data it expects there, so that the drive can swiftly remap the sector and write the appropriate data to the replacement sector. In this case the user doesn't notice any performance/data losses (other than a message in the controller's log) and the drive remains an operating array member. If the array was a RAID-0 however the error causes the array to be faulty and unusable.

So the conclusion would be that indeed if you're using a RAID controller you're far better off with TLER, but ONLY if you utilize a redundant array (RAID-1/5/6/...). If you use a RAID-0/JBOD/... you'll lose data anyway - TLER or not.

For using a controller it doesn't make much difference since the process that issued the read will most likely fail anyways - if the error couldn't be fixed within 7 seconds, it's very unlikely to be fixed at all.

I hope this helps to clear up some of the confusion!

I'd recommend this drive in both cases! The 5 year warranty and the 24hr factory stress test are in my opinion a far better deal than the remote chance that an bad sector can be recovered if it wasn't within 7 seconds! Especialy since this drive utilizes a fully bit CRC! :D

Edited by Elandril

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey everyone,

Once and for all, the difference between the WD4000YR and the WD4000KD is simple marketing.

They are the exact same hard drives and come off the exact same assembly line.

If that is true why does the WD site show the drives have different seek time and power specifications and internals which are obviously different.

wdfEnterprise_RE2_NCQ.jpgwdfDesktop_SE16_KD.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey everyone,

Once and for all, the difference between the WD4000YR and the WD4000KD is simple marketing.

They are the exact same hard drives and come off the exact same assembly line.

If that is true why does the WD site show the drives have different seek time and power specifications and internals which are obviously different.

wdfEnterprise_RE2_NCQ.jpgwdfDesktop_SE16_KD.jpg

Incorrect picture on the right. That depicts a single-platter drive. Unless they somehow managed to achieve 400 GB on 3 platters (and I didn't think they had one like that), it has to be their newer 4-disk platform, which is what the one on the left shows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now