Solved

Difference between NAS and PC drives, from perspective of *inside the drives themselves*

Hi folks!

NewEgg lists two HDDs as follows:

$200: HGST Deskstar NAS H3IKNAS40003272SN(0S03664) 4TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" High-Performance Hard Drive for Desktop NAS Systems Bare Drive

$320: HGST Ultrastar 7K4000 HUS724040ALE640(0F14683) 4TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Enterprise Hard Drive Bare Drive

You can see that they are practically identical, yet the NAS only costs 5/8ths as much. The descriptions don't indicate much difference, except that the more expensive one is rated for 2M hours MTBF, twice the NAS drive.

Be that as it may, it begs the question: What exactly is the difference in the drives themselves? They seem almost identical. Can't they be used interchangeably?

Yes, I know the definition of NAS, DAS, and internal drives, and that an NAS drive is intended for a dedicated network device. But when I google for info on what is different about the drives, all I can find is definitions of NAS, etc. I can't find what's actually different inside the drives.

And can a "NAS" drive be used as a regular (internal PC) drive?

Thanks in advance if you can help!

Mike
8 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about difference nas drives perspective inside drives
  1. Best answer
    Yes the only difference is NAS/Enterprise drives are usually made with some better parts in order to last longer.
  2. Ok. Although in this case, the NAS drive has worse parts.

    So they ARE interchangeable? Cool! The NAS one is a lot cheaper, and 1M hrs MTBF is still great. I'll get it for an internal PC drive.

    Thanks!

    Mike
  3. RedKnight7 said:
    Ok. Although in this case, the NAS drive has worse parts.

    So they ARE interchangeable? Cool! The NAS one is a lot cheaper, and 1M hrs MTBF is still great. I'll get it for an internal PC drive.

    Thanks!

    Mike


    Thats because in this case the Ultrastar is a server/enterprise disk which has to be even better than a NAS drive hence the doubled MTBF
  4. Ah, I see what you're both saying, now. Thanks then - all is clear!

    For what it's worth, I think it's a great drive for the reliability. BackBlaze found that the drive I had been intending to buy, the 4TB Seagate Deskstar, has considerably worse MTBF. http://blog.backblaze.com/2014/01/21/what-hard-drive-should-i-buy/
  5. RedKnight7 said:
    Ah, I see what you're both saying, now. Thanks then - all is clear!

    For what it's worth, I think it's a great drive for the reliability. BackBlaze found that the drive I had been intending to buy, the 4TB Seagate Deskstar, has considerably worse MTBF. http://blog.backblaze.com/2014/01/21/what-hard-drive-should-i-buy/


    Ya MTBF is usually a pretty good sign of how good a drive is
  6. Ok, I added this to the wikipedia page on NAS as shown here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Network-attached_storage&diff=600456001&oldid=600128640

    As I said when I added it, "Hardware veterans are sure to know this tidbit, but novices are not, and this is the first place some will look when they see "NAS" in the name of drives they're considering buying"

    Thanks again, you two. Now, more noobs should know what's obvious to vets. And won't ask silly questions :)
  7. RedKnight7 said:
    Ah, I see what you're both saying, now. Thanks then - all is clear!

    For what it's worth, I think it's a great drive for the reliability. BackBlaze found that the drive I had been intending to buy, the 4TB Seagate Deskstar, has considerably worse MTBF. http://blog.backblaze.com/2014/01/21/what-hard-drive-should-i-buy/


    Backblaze was using consumer drives in a 24/7 enterprise environment. That tells you literally NOTHING about the reliability of those drives in a consumer environment.

    That's not to say that Seagate doesn't have marginally higher failure rates in a consumer environment than WD and Hitachi, but nothing like 3-4X that Backblaze was publishing.
  8. Spectre694 said:
    RedKnight7 said:
    Ah, I see what you're both saying, now. Thanks then - all is clear!

    For what it's worth, I think it's a great drive for the reliability. BackBlaze found that the drive I had been intending to buy, the 4TB Seagate Deskstar, has considerably worse MTBF. http://blog.backblaze.com/2014/01/21/what-hard-drive-should-i-buy/


    Ya MTBF is usually a pretty good sign of how good a drive is


    This is true when talking about relative failure rates.

    In terms of absolutes ti doesn't mean that a drive with a rated 2m hours is going to last twice as long on average as a 1m hour drive.

    I mean we all know it's absurd to think any of these drives are going to actually last the equivalent of 228 and 114 years, so you should take that with a grain of salt when applying it to the typical 5-10 year lifespan of these drives.

    The warranty period is a pretty good indicator, though because those numbers have to be accurate or they risk losing money beyond the outlays they made for warranty replacement.
Ask a new question

Read More

NAS / RAID HGST Cache Storage Hard Drives