[section_title title=Specifications & Test Setup]
Specifications & Test Setup
| Brand | Western Digital |
| Item Weight | 753 g |
| Product Dimensions | 14.7 x 10.2 x 2.5 cm |
| Item model number | WD60EFRX |
| Series | WD60EFRX RED |
| Hard Drive Size | 6 TB |
| Wattage | 5 watts |
Test Setup
CPU: Intel Core i7-6770K @ 4.5GHz
CPU Cooler: Alphacool Custom WC Kit
Motherboard: ASUS Z170 Maximus VIII Hero Alpha
RAM: Corsair Vengeance LPX 2400MHz 8GB (2x4GB)
PSU: Cooler Master V1200 1200w Platinum
OS: Windows 8.1 Professional 64 bit
Methodology:
All benchmarks are done on a fresh install of Windows 8.1 Professional 64-bit that is fully up-to-date with Windows Updates to ensure that the performance reflects a real-world scenario and not that of a tweaked benchmarking system. Every benchmark runs for a total of three times and then an average is taken of those results.
Benchmarks:
ATTO Disk Benchmark – Sequential read and write speeds
Crystal Disk Mark 3.0 – Sequential read and write speeds
4.75GB Transfer Test – Time taken in seconds to transfer files from our test system SSD; fastest wins!
I believe WD’s “Red” series HDDs have a dynamic balancing feature in the main bearings.
Also, when one of the drives in a RAID-0 array fails, it must be replaced and the
entire array re-built: this is not much different from the steps that must be taken
when a single “JBOD” HDD fails. We use a lot of RAID-0 arrays, for speed, and
we LUV them! Lastly, in future reviews, you might want to mention the ratio
of (price) / (warranty years). Most often, the 5-year warranties excel on this metric.
Why? Why only synthetic, worthless benchmarks? Of course 2 disks in RAID0 are going to have 2 times everything! We don’t need benchmarks to prove it, logic proves it!
Why can’t there be one benchmark on the whole Internet, of HDD RAID0 vs no RAID testing real-world scenarios, with a RAID controller (and comparing hardware and software controllers)? And by real-world I don’t mean copying speed as that’s as obvious as synthetic benchmark results.
I know this thread is olddd .. but the response above by Karol is brilliant .. there is a definite anti RAID thing generally these days… what I find hilarious is they state RAID 0 gives minimal performance increase. Then they go into RAID 10 and then talk about how much faster it is, and it’s awesome blah blah .. RAID 10 is by its nature slower than RAID 0 but despite that they say it’s crap I one sentence then talk about how fast it is in another!
They also love to bring in drive failure .. I have owned many very high performance PC’s over 35 years, and have had precisely 1 drive failure – BUT that was on a single external HDD .. So I have always used hardware RAID on all my setups, with 0 failures .. What’s more I was State Manager of a company who imported RAID cards and massive pre-built. RAID 5 drives. We had only 1 instance of a failure, the RAID 5 array lost 3 drives simultaneously – which obviously was a huge problem .. the fact it was Australia’s largest advertising agency at the time made it more fun, and I put in 36 hour day to get it sorted .. BUT that problem came to be because of a well known issue with the Seagate Barracudas at that time.
So this doubles your chance of failure is an incorrect understanding of real world statistics. It doubles nothing. In either case the chance of 1 drive going boom is the same and if that happens in any case then both RAID 0 and normal setup is gone.
Even if it doubled your chance of failure your talking .02% vs .01% or some stupid comparison like that. RAID failures are usually software RAID or non matching drives or other plain bad setup