That doesn't make any sense. The effect of lower density is lower sequential speed, which is reflected in the chart. Same goes for the drives identical RPM.
They're using highly precise stepper motors to maintain 7200 RPM across all models of drives. I don't think variance in rotation speed would account for the difference in power consumption.
It might be the case that the 6TB model is using lower density platters and thus has the highest number of them among the series. That _could_ account for the power differences and it'd make a lot more sense than different rotational speeds.
Yeah, the drives are all spinning the same RPM. Perhaps the lower density platters are actually heavier or maybe require more head movement which both would equate to more power usage.
The 4TB and 6TB drives seem to be built on previous generation components, having SATA 3.1 controllers. These could draw slightly more power.
The power numbers are also likely peak numbers, and since only the 8TB model has a consistent BOM, I'd guess they are compensating for different platter configurations. The models with fewer 1.33TB/platter configuration will inevitably draw less power than the models with lower density 6x1TB\5x800GB platters built on previous manufacturing technology (heavier)
My takeaway from this chart is, as usual, get the highest end model if you can afford it, or stick with a known-reliable previous gen model.
They've always had em in a sense, they've just never been disclosed as they are being now.
I mean, it's a mechanical device that vibrates on it's own with a good selection of bearings.. eventually it will fail, and you can be damned sure that the HDD vendors have that modeled somewhere.
It's always there, specially for the enterprise segment where these info are critical, regular consumers in the second hand just started to pay attention to these details in last few years, I guess as the drives are getting larger; a failure means a lot of data is gone... and now more SOHO users are using NAS's also makers like WD, Seagate, HGST and now Toshiba are making those NAS dedicated drives for high-endurances...
It's a spinning disk drive. One full drive write would take 10 hours anyway, and that's 100% sequential. There's no way those things could even hit that number of drive writes per day with a purely 4K random workload. Do you tend to write > 500 GB daily to a single HDD?
Maybe you missed the "for home and SOHO NAS devices" part then. Not sure how many clients you've got backing up to a single target, but unless you're editing video, 500 GB / day is thoroughly adequate for home or SOHO NAS scenarios. You'd be lucky to complete 1 full drive write to an 8 GB HDD in 24 hours over GbE anyway.
As an owner of 6 Toshiba 7200RPM drives (and 4 more that were returned as faulty) I can ASSURE YOU, I have absoloutely, zero interest in purchasing any more 7200RPM disks for my NAS. 0 interest whatsoever.
I would rather lose a paltry 5 to 15% performance and not have HOT and NOISY disks which love to fail. I'm not doing a cookout here, I'm trying to store data.
If I wanted bloody performance, I'd install an SSD or 6 in my NAS, not a 7200RPM drive. Why on earth do these things still exist?
They are cheaper than SSDs and you can saturate gigabit Ethernet with one mechanical drive. Why would you spend on an SSD RAID NAS unless you have something faster than gigabit net?
Basically some of us just want a cool and near silent box to dump loads of data safely for a time when we might need it again in the future. Therefore, as long as we get a reasonable transfer speed we are golden. Not everyone works in PIXAR or needs cutting edge or no holds barred performance. Be interesting to have say a RAID10 box using 4200rpm HDDs.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
23 Comments
Back to Article
SharpEars - Wednesday, February 15, 2017 - link
Why does the 6 TB unit draw more power than the 8 TB unit - very weird.RaichuPls - Wednesday, February 15, 2017 - link
Same amount of platters, lower density means your spindle has to spin faster.ddriver - Wednesday, February 15, 2017 - link
That doesn't make any sense. The effect of lower density is lower sequential speed, which is reflected in the chart. Same goes for the drives identical RPM.BrokenCrayons - Wednesday, February 15, 2017 - link
They're using highly precise stepper motors to maintain 7200 RPM across all models of drives. I don't think variance in rotation speed would account for the difference in power consumption.It might be the case that the 6TB model is using lower density platters and thus has the highest number of them among the series. That _could_ account for the power differences and it'd make a lot more sense than different rotational speeds.
cygnus1 - Thursday, February 16, 2017 - link
Yeah, the drives are all spinning the same RPM. Perhaps the lower density platters are actually heavier or maybe require more head movement which both would equate to more power usage.Samus - Saturday, February 18, 2017 - link
The 4TB and 6TB drives seem to be built on previous generation components, having SATA 3.1 controllers. These could draw slightly more power.The power numbers are also likely peak numbers, and since only the 8TB model has a consistent BOM, I'd guess they are compensating for different platter configurations. The models with fewer 1.33TB/platter configuration will inevitably draw less power than the models with lower density 6x1TB\5x800GB platters built on previous manufacturing technology (heavier)
My takeaway from this chart is, as usual, get the highest end model if you can afford it, or stick with a known-reliable previous gen model.
extide - Friday, February 24, 2017 - link
No, dude, they are all 7200 RPM (its right in the specs) -- so obviously more platters = more rotating mass, more heads, etclosergamer04 - Wednesday, February 15, 2017 - link
I'd guess it's a different SATA chip that accounts for the change in power.Penti - Wednesday, February 15, 2017 - link
Different HDD-controller obviously, even the 4TB-model uses more peak power.Ginner.N - Wednesday, February 15, 2017 - link
Why HDD now a days have Endurance rating ? Also will the warranty be void if i somehow managed to write more data than the specified rating ?ddriver - Wednesday, February 15, 2017 - link
Any void warranty on a failed product means more profit.ZeDestructor - Wednesday, February 15, 2017 - link
They've always had em in a sense, they've just never been disclosed as they are being now.I mean, it's a mechanical device that vibrates on it's own with a good selection of bearings.. eventually it will fail, and you can be damned sure that the HDD vendors have that modeled somewhere.
Xajel - Thursday, February 16, 2017 - link
It's always there, specially for the enterprise segment where these info are critical, regular consumers in the second hand just started to pay attention to these details in last few years, I guess as the drives are getting larger; a failure means a lot of data is gone... and now more SOHO users are using NAS's also makers like WD, Seagate, HGST and now Toshiba are making those NAS dedicated drives for high-endurances...Michael Bay - Wednesday, February 15, 2017 - link
Those workloads are truly woeful. To have all that storage space and not to be able to use it properly, nice.repoman27 - Wednesday, February 15, 2017 - link
It's a spinning disk drive. One full drive write would take 10 hours anyway, and that's 100% sequential. There's no way those things could even hit that number of drive writes per day with a purely 4K random workload. Do you tend to write > 500 GB daily to a single HDD?Michael Bay - Friday, February 17, 2017 - link
If it`s a backup drive, easily.repoman27 - Friday, February 17, 2017 - link
Maybe you missed the "for home and SOHO NAS devices" part then. Not sure how many clients you've got backing up to a single target, but unless you're editing video, 500 GB / day is thoroughly adequate for home or SOHO NAS scenarios. You'd be lucky to complete 1 full drive write to an 8 GB HDD in 24 hours over GbE anyway.AbRASiON - Wednesday, February 15, 2017 - link
As an owner of 6 Toshiba 7200RPM drives (and 4 more that were returned as faulty) I can ASSURE YOU, I have absoloutely, zero interest in purchasing any more 7200RPM disks for my NAS. 0 interest whatsoever.I would rather lose a paltry 5 to 15% performance and not have HOT and NOISY disks which love to fail. I'm not doing a cookout here, I'm trying to store data.
If I wanted bloody performance, I'd install an SSD or 6 in my NAS, not a 7200RPM drive. Why on earth do these things still exist?
bananaforscale - Thursday, February 16, 2017 - link
They are cheaper than SSDs and you can saturate gigabit Ethernet with one mechanical drive. Why would you spend on an SSD RAID NAS unless you have something faster than gigabit net?jabber - Thursday, February 16, 2017 - link
Basically some of us just want a cool and near silent box to dump loads of data safely for a time when we might need it again in the future. Therefore, as long as we get a reasonable transfer speed we are golden. Not everyone works in PIXAR or needs cutting edge or no holds barred performance. Be interesting to have say a RAID10 box using 4200rpm HDDs.extide - Friday, February 24, 2017 - link
Dude, ALL modern HD's suck .. its just how it isTelstarTOS - Friday, February 17, 2017 - link
way too loud. I'm sticking with WD reds.extide - Friday, February 24, 2017 - link
No, dude, they are all 7200 RPM (its right in the specs) -- so obviously more platters = more rotating mass, more heads, etc