PDA

View Full Version : "green" hard drives...



offensive_Jerk
November 30th, 2009, 05:57 PM
What's the big idea with these "green" HDDs all over the place???
Makes no sense to me. Why would you want a low power, lower RPM drive in a desktop?

I could see in a laptop, where the energy savings may make a difference, but I don't get it.

I wanna buy some 2TB drives, but these 'green' drives are just too lousy specwise. The normal power drives are waaaay more expensive, and I don't get why.

I would like to buy one and RAID it, but I know the WD Green drives have all kinds of issues working in RAID and WD themselves suggest not doing it.....

I don't even get how how big of a power savings this even gets you...

Ole Juul
November 30th, 2009, 06:12 PM
Well, if you don't buy one, that would make the energy saving close to 100% the way I see it. :p :p

Seriously, I haven't researched these, but I guess the lower speed would account for a big saving in production cost. If it's just for file storage and backup, then this could be a good choice. As for the green thing, that's probably just a green herring. :p

Old Thrashbarg
November 30th, 2009, 06:40 PM
The power savings is pretty significant if you go by percentages, but in reality you're talking about the difference between 9W for a normal drive and 6W for a green drive. I don't really see that as a big selling point like it's hyped up to be.

I have three of the Samsung EcoGreen models in my main machine... two 1TB and just added a 1.5TB. I mainly bought 'em because they happened to be cheap, but I really like the fact that they're near silent, plus they run very cool so I can get away without having to add any more fans to my case. As for the speed, sure, they wouldn't make good boot drives, but they're fast enough for bulk storage.

krebizfan
November 30th, 2009, 07:16 PM
The green drives are perfect for usage in external enclosures. Green drive is still far faster than USB 2.0 can use. Also, green drives make sense for media systems where being quiet is more important than raw speed. Blue Ray files only need 5 MB/sec. 25 year old SCSI drives have plenty of speed; green drives are 10 times faster while the black high-performance drives would barely use 3% of their total transfer rates.

Why pay for performance that can not be utilized?

Chuck(G)
November 30th, 2009, 09:19 PM
I like the idea of green drives--vary the spindle speed as requirements dictate. Some green drives are nearly as fast as their conventional counterparts.

It makes sense to me.

offensive_Jerk
November 30th, 2009, 11:51 PM
I haven't used a green drive myself so I cannot say anything regarding their performance.

The drives that do display the speed are usually about 5000 some RPM, so I am assuming that is the max speed?

This green movement and ROHS products make me skeptical about their longevity.
It seems the newer hardware I have gotten, some of which where ROHS tend to have a higher failure rate. I don't know if the quality is worse, or if it does have something to do with ROHS, but seems kinda coincidental.

Well I bit the bucket and ordered some green 2TB Seagates anyway. Didn't wanna fork over too much cash these days.
I hope they don't deplete on me right away.

offensive_Jerk
November 30th, 2009, 11:53 PM
The green drives are perfect for usage in external enclosures. Green drive is still far faster than USB 2.0 can use. Also, green drives make sense for media systems where being quiet is more important than raw speed. Blue Ray files only need 5 MB/sec. 25 year old SCSI drives have plenty of speed; green drives are 10 times faster while the black high-performance drives would barely use 3% of their total transfer rates.

Why pay for performance that can not be utilized?

I understand the usage for externals, but I like to keep my storage in a case. Going to setup a raid.

carlsson
December 1st, 2009, 03:36 AM
Dunno about your area, but over here the WD Blue is only 10-20% more expensive than WD Green. Personally I need a HDD that runs slower in hope it will produce less heat. Since my main PC is a very tight barebone with room for exactly one drive, a drive spinning faster and possibly running hotter will be bad both for the drive and rest of the computer.

Old Thrashbarg
December 1st, 2009, 04:11 AM
I like the idea of green drives--vary the spindle speed as requirements dictate

That's a myth. They're all a fixed spindle speed, just at a lower RPM than usual. I think the misunderstanding originated from one of the Western Digital press releases, where they gave an RPM range to avoid saying exactly how fast the drive actually spins.

mpickering
December 1st, 2009, 06:25 AM
It's marketing to me. Frankly, if it has "green" on it, I avoid it. I'm not dropping bucks on that type of hardware to save power; I'm looking to consume it! It's all about performance and I'm not using this stuff in a quiet media machine.

I buy Caviar Blue drives for average desktop use. My primary drives are Caviar Black. Drives that take pride in their evil, non-green ways! Down with the green! Long live the black and blue!

Matt

hargle
December 1st, 2009, 06:41 AM
I have four WD 1TB green drives in my raid 5 box. they are perfect for the job. It's bulk storage, 24/7 uptime, so having something that pulls in a few less watts and produces a little less heat in my closet is a good thing.

what I think is really nice though is that they are dead quiet. Normal WD drives have a really annoying high motor sound, that seems to be unique to WD. I have traditionally avoided WD altogether because I think they are too noisy. These greenies though, really work well.

I've had them for almost 2 years now and not 1 single hiccup.

So, don't be afraid to go green. just don't go overboard and start wearing patchouli or we will hunt you down.

PhotoJim
December 1st, 2009, 12:14 PM
I have three WD Green drives. Two are in my server (which is a PIII box with standard PCI slots, so it can't really take advantage of faster drives anyway) and the other is in an external enclosure connected to a SheevaPlug for remote rsyncing of the drives in the server. Speed is completely irrelevant for that machine, and since the computer only draws 5 watts, having a 6-watt disk instead of 9 makes a massive total difference.

"Green" drives are cheaper not because they're green, but because it's cheaper to make slower, lower-performing drives. The energy savings are useful to some people. In my case, paying more for faster drives would be a waste of money at the time of purchase and a continuous waste of money in operational costs.

I rarely have the best of anything; it's rarely necessary. Even my new (as of last Friday) Dell i7 laptop is only the second-fastest laptop available on the market because I didn't spend the extra $400 to go from a 1.6 to a 1.8 GHz CPU. The marginal benefit wasn't high enough.

If you need the speed, pay for it. If you don't, the green drives are a terrific option.

Vlad
December 1st, 2009, 12:19 PM
This green movement and ROHS products make me skeptical about their longevity.
It seems the newer hardware I have gotten, some of which where ROHS tend to have a higher failure rate. I don't know if the quality is worse, or if it does have something to do with ROHS, but seems kinda coincidental.


One of the biggest criticisms of RoHS has been exactly that. The RoHS Directive limits the use of certain substances in electronic devices and I think they run into trouble because one of those substances is lead. Lead free solder sometimes can grow tin whiskers which will short a near by trace leading to failure. Some lead free solder can be harder and crack much easier resulting in a failed connection or cold solder joint much more easily than traditional lead solder.

My biggest complaint about RoSH is it's high cost of compliance usually means that cost is passed on to the consumer since machines have to be retooled to work with the compliant materials.

I'm not real sure on this but as far as I know RoHS is a European Union Directive, so technically the US doesn't have to obey it but a lot of parts are either made in the EU or are RoHS compliant for export reasons.

My 2 cents worth anyway.

Chuck(G)
December 1st, 2009, 01:42 PM
That's a myth. They're all a fixed spindle speed, just at a lower RPM than usual. I think the misunderstanding originated from one of the Western Digital press releases, where they gave an RPM range to avoid saying exactly how fast the drive actually spins.

WDC claims (http://www.wdc.com/en/products/Products.asp?DriveID=385) vs. reality (http://www.storagereview.com/1000.sr?page=0,1).

Ah well. People believed that DoubleSpace would actually double their drive storage.

Thanks for the heads up on the corporate dissembling.

`When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, `I always pay it extra.'

offensive_Jerk
December 1st, 2009, 03:30 PM
Maybe they should resell the Quantum Bigfeet as Green Drives... ;)

Anonymous Freak
December 2nd, 2009, 03:20 PM
Maybe they should resell the Quantum Bigfeet as Green Drives... ;)

Nah, those huge platters take a lot of power to spin.

I'm waiting for a company to just put a 4200 RPM 2.5" drive into a big 3.5" chassis and claim it is the new "green" desktop drive.

Personally, I have a "Green" drive in a (2 TB) USB enclosure, a second in my media box (1 TB), plus a 7200 RPM 1 TB drive. To compare when I got the 'green' 1 TB drive, I tried various 'day to day' tasks on the same system, once using the green drive, once using the 7200 RPM drive. I couldn't tell the difference. Yeah, the non-green drive benchmarked slightly faster, but for what I do, it seemed to make no difference. The computer didn't boot any faster, didn't resume-from-suspend-to-disk any faster, etc.

But in my media machine, which is on 24/7, those extra 5 Watts will eventually make a difference on the power bill. (I need to find a lower-power video card; the 4850 in there is nice, with its native HDMI, but I know I can find something that will do GPU-accelerated playback without drawing nearly as much power. With its two-slot cooler, it is nearly silent, though. My 200 mm case fan on 'low' is louder, and it's not exactly a loud device. Basically, may aim is to have my "Green" hard drive to be the loudest thing in the box.)

Darxide
December 12th, 2009, 09:41 AM
I agree with what others have said. The WD greens are perfect for NAS enclosures, and quiet media centres. I have 2 green 1Tb's running RAID 1 in a NAS, up 24/7. Nice and quiet, and hasn't failed yet.

But I would never use them as a main HDD in a desktop. There I like fast, noisy, and power hungry......I have 2 Velociraptors in RAID 0 for the O/S and apps, with a Cavair Black for data storage.

offensive_Jerk
December 12th, 2009, 08:34 PM
Well, the Seagate 5900 RPM drives seem to perform better than expected.
Have them in RAID 1, seems to hold steady around 80MB/s

Jorg
December 12th, 2009, 11:58 PM
With the current recording densities, I really see no need for me for loud fast spinning drives.
So looking past the 'green' argument, yes, I prefer 5400 rpm drives- less noise, maybe less wear and tear.
If I want speed, I'd buy an SSD.

carlsson
December 22nd, 2009, 10:33 PM
Personally I need a HDD that runs slower in hope it will produce less heat.
Yesterday I installed my WD Green and also downloaded a program that tracks the temperature. It seems to run around 30C, maximum 42C when busy formatting a huge partition. It should be compared to my former 7200 rpm drive that easily hit 40C when idling and 54C while being in use. I believe those 10-15C less heat will be good both for the drive and rest of the computer. Please remember I have a very tight barebone chassis with close to zero options for fans or passive cooling, which may be a reason I so far see such a big difference in generated heat between a 5400 and a 7200 rpm drive.