Sign in to follow this  
whiic

Reliability Survey: WD Greenpower (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th gen)

Recommended Posts

Greenpower generation already has a database entry, but might be worth specifying it as 1st generation. Some people have no doubt already entered some 2nd and 3rd gen samples to it. We could recommend people to "Delete" their entries and re-enter them under proper generation. Naturally recommending it won't reach everyone so there'll always be mis-entered HDDs in Reliability Survey. (And it's always been that way with people wanting to report their HDDs even when they have not been listed.)

1st generation

Manufacturer: Western Digital

Family: Caviar Green (aka Greenpower) (1st gen)

Released: Third quarter 2007

Notes:

Model Name (product family): Caviar Green (aka Greenpower) (1st gen)

Model Number: WD5000AACS, WD7500AACS, WD10EACS

Capacity: 500, 750, 1000 gigabytes (respectively)

URL: N/A (WD doesn't give permanlinks to previous generations... it's the same page for the current generation)

Interface: SATA300

Spindle Speed: 5400rpm

Seek: -not specified-

Buffer: 16000 (were there smaller cache for lower capacities? if there was, it will affect model numbers as well)

Density: 250 gigabytes per platter

2nd generation

Manufacturer: Western Digital

Family: Caviar Green (2nd gen)

Released: FILL IN

Notes:

Model Name (product family): Caviar Green (2nd gen)

Model Number: FILL IN

Capacity: FILL IN gigabytes

URL:

Interface: SATA300

Spindle Speed: rotations per minute

Seek: -not specified-

Buffer: 16000 and 32000

Density: 334 gigabytes per platter

3rd generation

Manufacturer: Western Digital

Family: Caviar Green (3rd gen)

Released: FILL IN

Notes:

Model Name (product family): Caviar Green (3rd gen)

Model Number: WD5000AAxS, WD6400AAxS, WD7500AAxS, WD10EAxS, WD15EAxS, WD20EAxS

Capacity: 500, 640, 750, 1000, 1500, 2000 gigabytes

URL: http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.asp?DriveID=576 (32MB) and http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.asp?DriveID=336 (16MB)

Interface: SATA300

Spindle Speed: 5400rpm

Seek: -not specified-

Buffer: 16000 and 32000

Density: 500 gigabytes per platter

4th generation

Manufacturer: Western Digital

Family: Caviar Green (4rd gen)

Released: 4th quarter 2009

Notes: WDxxxxAARS & WDxxEARS use 4096 byte physical sectors

Model Name (product family): Caviar Green (4th gen)

Model Number: WD6400AARS, WD8000AARS, WD10EARS, WD15EARS, WD20EARS

Capacity: 640, 800, 1000, 1500, 2000 gigabytes

URL: http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.asp?DriveID=773

Interface: SATA300

Spindle Speed: 5400rpm

Seek: -not specified-

Buffer: 64000 kilobytes

Density: 500 gigabytes per platter (???)

Edited by whiic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't hurry up on updating these to Survey. It's probably better to have a discussion on what a "family" of drives is.

- drives from a certain manufacturer that use certain rpm combined with certain density (noteworthy exception: some capacity points within same geration may use lower density platters instead of short-stroking)

- drives that use the same physical build, drives that are mechanically similar: 1-3-platter GP vs 4-platter GP

- drives that have the same name. This has been the practice so far in Reliability Survey. Unfortunately it means that a persistent capacity point like 250GB will have it's representation in half a dozen generation of drives: starting from being a flagship, to being a short-stroked single-platter single-head el cheapo... all listed as same product and having one reliability percentile.

- at least we should combine all available cache size variants of a drive model into single one. After all, they're 99.999% identical drives, only varying with a single chip. Exception being 64MB (EARS) variant of Greenpower as one might call it a new generation. Not because of the cache itself but because they switched over to 4096 byte sectors (with 512 byte sector emulation for compatibility with old hardware and software). As some people say that 1.5TB is faster than 1.0TB and 2.0TB, it might also suggest that this 4096 byte sector variant might use 800GB platters (as it also has a 800GB variant instead of 750GB!). This increase in density doesn't come with increased bit density but with decreased error correction code (less lost bits on the platter). But I guess it can't be 800GB/pl... it's just too big of a jump even with 4096 byte sectors. I also don't know if 1.5TB actually is faster like some say it is. Might also be 640GB/pl as smallest capacity of 4th gen is 640GB and no 500GB variant is available. (I still put 500GB/pl in the info.)

Also might be worth reconsidering what data is necessary for HDD families. Is "URL" necessary? Not all manufacturers provide a permalink to specs. And specs may be altered to match a new generation. What's it with "Family:" and "Model Name (product family):" ? After all in Reliability Survey the hierarchy goes Manufacturer -> Family -> Model (where model pretty much means a certain capacity point within a family).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was debating the use of date too, right now it's with the family but would it be more appropriate with the product model? Maybe not, since they typically use the same or similar hardware.

As it stands, I don't want to change the framework much, if at all, but we should feel free to discuss making this better, so we can address these issues progressively. Step one is adding a SSD switch, right now the database assumes they're all HDD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still setting aside some of the fundamental questions about the database, I've just added all of the current Caviar Green drives to the database. If you have one of these drives, please submit away ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh? You made EADS (AADS) and EACS (AACS) "4th gen". Only EARS (AARS) has 4 KiB sector size. EADS drives are either 2nd or 3rd gen. EACS are 1st or 2nd or 3rd. And it's just me who's calling EARS "4th generation". There's no consensus on that as there hasn't been that much discussion about it yet.

I think you'd need 3rd generation family as well. And it might be better to call the generation as "500GB/platter" because not everyone keeps count on total number of generations (and since there's possibility that not everyone will regard 4 KiB sector size as a new generation as data density remain the same although drives physical data layout is revolutionized). Likewise, "4th generation" is probably better called by "64MB cache" or "Advanced Format" drives. Article about "Advanced Format" (4096 byte sectors): http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3691

If despite significance of 4KiB sectors you wanted to keep the same with 512B sector drives and lump them to same generation, then you should call it "3rd gen" or like previously mentioned "500GB/platter generation". This might be acceptable as WD doesn't officially mention 4KiB sectors in product specs. We only know EARS has them because they mentioned it in articles regarding technology itself. They mentioned EARS will be the first, however this most likely mean, we cannot know for certain for other products to come wither they use 512 or 4096 byte sectors. Way to go, WD! I've always loved you for being so f'ing honest. Like the fact that they still can't admit that Caviar Green is indeed 5400rpm. I guess they're thinking of themselves being comparable to Roll-Royce and their famous answer to horse power questions: "enough".

Greenpower group could consist of 1st AND 2nd generation because it has probably already been "corrupted" by both generation entries already. Also, 1st and 2nd gen are already out of market and replaced by 3rd and 4th gen so it's probably not necessary to make retroactive corrections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have two 500GB WD5000AAKS from 2007/2008. one recently started to fail. maybe because I put down a keyboard on top of the case a bit too hard. nothing dramatic, just fell a couple of centimeters. might have just put it over the edge as the failure was immediately after and clear cut. failure is graceful though. can't really write to it but have been able to read about 200GB although now reduced to 4MB/s or even less. the other disc is operating nominally still.

it was a data disc that have been on 16 hours a day but have seen very light personal use duty.

it is hard mounted in 3.5" case slot. the other is mounted with rubber bushings although not sure it is substantially different

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
Sign in to follow this