Unfortunately, this deal is no longer available
WD 10TB Elements Desktop External Hard Drive £169.99 @ Amazon
323° Expired

WD 10TB Elements Desktop External Hard Drive £169.99 @ Amazon

£169.99 Free P&P FreeAmazon Deals
31
Posted 1st Jun

This deal is expired. Here are some options that might interest you:

WD 10TB Elements Desktop External Hard Drive - USB 3.0

Fast data transfers
High-capacity add-on storage
Plug-and-play ready for Windows PCs
Wd quality inside and out

Groups

31 Comments
Why buy 10 when you can get 12 for a similar price
sofiathefirst101/06/2020 21:55

Why buy 10 when you can get 12 for a similar price


I do agree but the 12tbs are over £200 currently so unless you have a time machine this is probably the best you can get unless you’re happy to wait
sofiathefirst101/06/2020 21:55

Why buy 10 when you can get 12 for a similar price


I would definitely wait the per tb on this is worse than deals that are almost monthly for these WD drives.
Given WD are being the most shady with SMR im avoiding them from now on.
r200ti01/06/2020 22:10

Given WD are being the most shady with SMR im avoiding them from now on.


Are seagate bettet ?
wakkaday01/06/2020 22:16

Are seagate bettet ?


I think both have been very secretive about SMR drives
S1X01/06/2020 22:25

I'm not defending them but they have released a table to show which are …I'm not defending them but they have released a table to show which are SMR... https://blog.westerndigital.com/wd-red-nas-drives/


Unfortunately they’re only listing their internal drives and no mention of externals
foordy0801/06/2020 22:27

Unfortunately they’re only listing their internal drives and no mention of …Unfortunately they’re only listing their internal drives and no mention of externals


Yeah it's a concern. Externals are so much cheaper tho so tempting to shuck
S1X01/06/2020 22:25

I'm not defending them but they have released a table to show which are …I'm not defending them but they have released a table to show which are SMR... https://blog.westerndigital.com/wd-red-nas-drives/


Wots bad about smr drives? I thought that was a good feature to have.
Shaftydude01/06/2020 23:07

Wots bad about smr drives? I thought that was a good feature to have.


SMR has poor random write speeds, also causes big issues with NASs and RAID arrays
Just don't use raid.
I have two. sets of four drives in two machines. They contain all the videos I have collected over the years and a whole lot of other stuff. They run media servers on the network. Two disks are simply copies of the other two disks. When I want to add new files, I add them to one of the two 'primary'disks. Every so often, I copy using simple software, just the changes from one disk to the other. Most of the time all of the disks are idling or being read from, so being SMR doesn't matter. I monitor SMART using simple software. Raid is just too intensive
Voted cold BTW, maybe it's an 'in Covid price' but .this is £17 per Terabyte so quite expensive ATM
Edited by: "jasee" 1st Jun
SMR has its place and i dont think anyone would have a problem if WD had been upfront about it.
i.e create a new line, or replace an existing line explicitly as SMR. People can then make there choice.

However they sneeked them into the Red lineup which was a huge fail - as thats where they will show up most (Reds, Raid arrays) Something that looks like getting them into big trouble in the US.

Seagate havnt been perfect, but at least they didnt put it into there Ironwolf line.

The only advantage to SMR is the bigger cache - used to hide there poor performance.
jasee01/06/2020 23:39

Just don't use raid. I have two. sets of four drives in two machines. They …Just don't use raid. I have two. sets of four drives in two machines. They contain all the videos I have collected over the years and a whole lot of other stuff. They run media servers on the network. Two disks are simply copies of the other two disks. When I want to add new files, I add them to one of the two 'primary'disks. Every so often, I copy using simple software, just the changes from one disk to the other. Most of the time all of the disks are idling or being read from, so being SMR doesn't matter. I monitor SMART using simple software. Raid is just too intensive .


the point is your not getting what you thought you were.
The main issue is people thinking they can drop these into existing raid arrays - which has blown up the issue which then brings things poor performance to the table.

As i previously said, if they created a new line nobody would care. Infact we'd probably be happy for cheaper archive discs. But branding them reds which leads to RAID setups..... thats a cheap and dirty trick.
I had to buy a new nas drive at the weekend - i didnt replace the failed red with another red.....
jasee01/06/2020 23:39

Just don't use raid. I have two. sets of four drives in two machines. They …Just don't use raid. I have two. sets of four drives in two machines. They contain all the videos I have collected over the years and a whole lot of other stuff. They run media servers on the network. Two disks are simply copies of the other two disks. When I want to add new files, I add them to one of the two 'primary'disks. Every so often, I copy using simple software, just the changes from one disk to the other. Most of the time all of the disks are idling or being read from, so being SMR doesn't matter. I monitor SMART using simple software. Raid is just too intensive Voted cold BTW, maybe it's an 'in Covid price' but .this is £17 per Terabyte so quite expensive ATM


Sounds like you could benefit from using Unraid
Why? KISS
Edited by: "jasee" 1st Jun
r200ti01/06/2020 23:44

the point is your not getting what you thought you were. The main issue … the point is your not getting what you thought you were. The main issue is people thinking they can drop these into existing raid arrays - which has blown up the issue which then brings things poor performance to the table. As i previously said, if they created a new line nobody would care. Infact we'd probably be happy for cheaper archive discs. But branding them reds which leads to RAID setups..... thats a cheap and dirty trick. I had to buy a new nas drive at the weekend - i didnt replace the failed red with another red.....


According to WD anything over 8tb appears to be CMR, at least for internal drives
I don't get it.
WD use SMR drives in desktop externals, which are principally intended for archive use, for which SMR works fine. Tightwads, who don't want to pay a few extra quid for designated, non-SMR, internal drives, shuck them, install them in RAID arrays & then bitch when they don't work?
And this is WD's fault, how, exactly??
I thought SMR was related to 8TB or less?
r200ti01/06/2020 22:10

Given WD are being the most shady with SMR im avoiding them from now on.




foordy0801/06/2020 22:19

I think both have been very secretive about SMR drives




S1X01/06/2020 22:29

Yeah it's a concern. Externals are so much cheaper tho so tempting to shuck




Shaftydude01/06/2020 23:07

Wots bad about smr drives? I thought that was a good feature to have.




r200ti01/06/2020 23:40

SMR has its place and i dont think anyone would have a problem if WD had …SMR has its place and i dont think anyone would have a problem if WD had been upfront about it. i.e create a new line, or replace an existing line explicitly as SMR. People can then make there choice. However they sneeked them into the Red lineup which was a huge fail - as thats where they will show up most (Reds, Raid arrays) Something that looks like getting them into big trouble in the US. Seagate havnt been perfect, but at least they didnt put it into there Ironwolf line. The only advantage to SMR is the bigger cache - used to hide there poor performance.


Most of you already seem to be aware of WD sneaking SMR drives into their Red HDDs but imagine case any of you aren’t I’ve posted a link to an article about it under ‘Additional info’ at the top of this thread.
dodgy_steve02/06/2020 00:04

I don't get it.WD use SMR drives in desktop externals, which are …I don't get it.WD use SMR drives in desktop externals, which are principally intended for archive use, for which SMR works fine. Tightwads, who don't want to pay a few extra quid for designated, non-SMR, internal drives, shuck them, install them in RAID arrays & then bitch when they don't work?And this is WD's fault, how, exactly??


You’re right, you don’t get it
dodgy_steve02/06/2020 00:04

I don't get it.WD use SMR drives in desktop externals, which are …I don't get it.WD use SMR drives in desktop externals, which are principally intended for archive use, for which SMR works fine. Tightwads, who don't want to pay a few extra quid for designated, non-SMR, internal drives, shuck them, install them in RAID arrays & then bitch when they don't work?And this is WD's fault, how, exactly??


Because they put them in their Red series, which are marketed as designed for RAID, when they are anything but. These were/are sold standalone. It's got nothing to do with being a tightwad.

Now that we know which are SMR and which are CMR, in personally still perfectly happy to buy WD drives if the price is right.
Seagate are no better. I picked up a 2tb Barracuda 7200rpm on a whim when building the system as a place to keep my Plex media. Big mistake. It drops down to 10mb/s write after the first gigabyte or two has been written.

The logic is inverse to what makes sense to me. It is used to enhance capacity - I foolishly assumed 2tb was so small these days it'd be fine, but the technique would be used in order to try and extract more capacity from the larger drives.

SMR should be viewed upon as a write once(slowly), read many media type.
ScallyCat02/06/2020 09:09

Seagate are no better. I picked up a 2tb Barracuda 7200rpm on a whim when …Seagate are no better. I picked up a 2tb Barracuda 7200rpm on a whim when building the system as a place to keep my Plex media. Big mistake. It drops down to 10mb/s write after the first gigabyte or two has been written.The logic is inverse to what makes sense to me. It is used to enhance capacity - I foolishly assumed 2tb was so small these days it'd be fine, but the technique would be used in order to try and extract more capacity from the larger drives.SMR should be viewed upon as a write once(slowly), read many media type.


WORM is what it is designed for but the naughty manufacturers are miss using it in products it shouldnt be in. Should only be used really for archival usage
What is a good non smr external drive ?
wakkaday02/06/2020 10:49

What is a good non smr external drive ?


WD haven’t advised about SMR in their external drives. Evidence and testing seems to suggest you’d be safe with 8tb and above drives.
dodgy_steve02/06/2020 00:04

I don't get it.WD use SMR drives in desktop externals, which are …I don't get it.WD use SMR drives in desktop externals, which are principally intended for archive use, for which SMR works fine. Tightwads, who don't want to pay a few extra quid for designated, non-SMR, internal drives, shuck them, install them in RAID arrays & then bitch when they don't work?And this is WD's fault, how, exactly??


I have bought several WD Elements (and other) drives over the years, and shucked them. I have them in RAID in my Dell PowerEdge server. I have had none of the issues that have been mentioned in this thread. Write speeds vary, but are typically around 135MB/s for me. I have never had issues with any of them. And to be fair, there is no difference in stability, reliability or performance that I have noticed.

As for "tightwads", my last shucked drive was a 14TB WD Elements, purchased only a couple of weeks ago. It cost £206 including delivery. Whereas a 14TB standalone drive currenly costs upwards of £430. Granted, the WD Elements are "white" labels, not "red" labels. But according to many forums, these are the same, only that white label has a faster sata interface.

As always, its user preference. But for me, its a no brainer. For the price of a WD Red, I can get twice the TBs, with no compromise.
Edited by: "clinkadink" 2nd Jun
clinkadink02/06/2020 16:37

I have bought several WD Elements (and other) drives over the years, and …I have bought several WD Elements (and other) drives over the years, and shucked them. I have them in RAID in my Dell PowerEdge server. I have had none of the issues that have been mentioned in this thread. Write speeds vary, but are typically around 135MB/s for me. I have never had issues with any of them. And to be fair, there is no difference in stability, reliability or performance that I have noticed.As for "tightwads", my last shucked drive was a 14TB WD Elements, purchased only a couple of weeks ago. It cost £206 including delivery. Whereas a 14TB standalone drive currenly costs upwards of £430. Granted, the WD Elements are "white" labels, not "red" labels. But according to many forums, these are the same, only that white label has a faster sata interface. As always, its user preference. But for me, its a no brainer. For the price of a WD Red, I can get twice the TBs, with no compromise.


Interesting - where did you get it for that price?
crimsonnight02/06/2020 18:03

Interesting - where did you get it for that price?


It was on HUKD about 2 weeks ago, plus I got 10% of for signing up to the WD newsletter. It was actually £195.49 with student/teacher discount.
hotukdeals.com/dea…842
Edited by: "clinkadink" 2nd Jun
Expired
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text