Western Digital Fesses Up: Some Red HDDs Use Slow SMR Tech Without Disclosure

(Image credit: Shutterstock)

Update, 4/16/2020 10am PT: Our follow-up story covers the fact that both Seagate and Toshiba are also engaging in this tactic. 

Paul Alcorn
Editor-in-Chief

Paul Alcorn is the Editor-in-Chief for Tom's Hardware US. He also writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage, and enterprise hardware.

  • mogster
    Just FYI, the link to the specification sheet PDF is broken.
    Reply
  • The_Arioch
    There are also Drive Managed SMR (DR-SMR)

    DM not DR
    Reply
  • mattkiss
    I'd be interested to know if their WD Red Pro line also has the same "issue." Looking at a couple of drives for a RAID 1 or RAID 10 array. Drive sizes I'm looking at are 2, 4, 6, and 8 TB.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    SMR is a relatively new tactic that HDD vendors use to increase storage density over HDDs that use 'standard' conventional magnetic recording (CMR), but the tech comes with notably slower performance in some workloads than 'normal' hard drives.
    I could be wrong, but think CMR stands in contrast to various forms of assisted MR. To that end, SMR is also a CMR technique, as is PMR (perpendicular magnetic recording).

    PMR has been dominant for the past 1.5 decades, or so. Prior to that, magnetic polarization was simply within the plane of the disk.

    SMR drives are also incredibly slow at random write performance
    This is the issue. SMR drives are a good substitute for tapes or "write-once, read-mostly" scenarios, but that's about it.
    Reply
  • digitalgriffin
    I just bought two of these drives from Amazon. (Wd 6tb red model WWWD60EFAX)
    I ran them in unraid as a parity and storage drive. The parity check took about 12 hours. Data speeds ranged from 180MBps to 90MBps with uneven write speeds. Average was 130MBps)

    I backed up personal movie/video music and photo collection as well as research documents here. So far zero errors. Im not sure why there are increased errors just because the file system is zfs.

    To be honest these drives are designed for NAS likely over a 1 gigabit connection. So the 130MBps is more than fast enough.
    Reply
  • spongiemaster
    digitalgriffin said:
    I just bought two of these drives from Amazon. (Wd 6tb red model WWWD60EFAX)
    I ran them in unraid as a parity and storage drive. The parity check took about 12 hours. Data speeds ranged from 180MBps to 90MBps with uneven write speeds. Average was 130MBps)

    I backed up personal movie/video music and photo collection as well as research documents here. So far zero errors. Im not sure why there are increased errors just because the file system is zfs.

    To be honest these drives are designed for NAS likely over a 1 gigabit connection. So the 130MBps is more than fast enough.

    SMR doesn't impact read speads. It only hurts write speeds. For home file servers and the like where the majority of the work loads are reads, SMR is perfectly fine. Especially for an Unraid server where the parity calculation destroys write speeds anyway, unless you have reconstruct write enabled which comes with its own drawbacks. You really don't want to be running Unraid on a server you are constantly writing large chunks of data to.

    If performance is your priority, you should be using the 7200RPM Red Pro drives.
    Reply
  • spongiemaster
    SMR uses perpendicular magnetic recording, making it a form of PMR. Since calling SMR PMR would be accurate, the original PMR was renamed CMR, conventional magnetic recording, to eliminate ambiguity.
    Reply
  • wr3zzz
    I don't keep up with HDD techs much anymore and was recently shopping for NAS HDD and wondering why Seagate drive listings has so many more letters in addition to the model number, but not WD. Now I get it.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    spongiemaster said:
    SMR uses perpendicular magnetic recording, making it a form of PMR.
    Thanks for the clarification. I suppose I read too much into the "shingled" analogy.

    So, maybe you can answer my next question: is the policy to rewrite everything after a modification, until the end of the chunk? I had previously understood that you had to rewrite the entire chunk, but since each track overlaps the previous one, if you can partially overlap it on one write pass, it's not clear to me why you wouldn't be able to partially overlap it on another.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    digitalgriffin said:
    To be honest these drives are designed for NAS likely over a 1 gigabit connection. So the 130MBps is more than fast enough.
    That's the sequential write speed. Sequential writes are not the issue with SMR - it's random writes, especially small ones.

    Basically, whenever you write even 1 byte in a given ~100 MB chunk*, you have read and re-write the whole thing (or, at least everything including & after the block you touched).

    So, if you're just using these drives to hold photos, music, and other stuff that you write once and basically don't touch, it'll probably be fine. If you're using them to hold drive images, which is a perfectly sequential operation, then they'd be great. But, if you're using them for data involving lots of small writes and frequent modifications and deletions, performance is going to be in the toilet.

    * Note: I haven't found good info on exactly how big the chunks are. It's drive-specific and I think manufacturers are not forthcoming about it. However, the info I've seen suggests chunk sizes on the order of 100 MB.
    Reply