WD RE4 2TB (WD2003FYPS) - Enterprise Grade HDD! £55.00 Sold by CrossCables and Fulfilled by Amazon
310°Expired

WD RE4 2TB (WD2003FYPS) - Enterprise Grade HDD! £55.00 Sold by CrossCables and Fulfilled by Amazon

44
44 Comments

Seems a great price

Is it better to use these or the Red models for data storage in a Windows Server?

Original Poster

I believe these are better in throughput and probably durability, after all Red's are still home or small business model.

However, these may consume a bit more as they are not meant to save power. There's another model RE4-GP that perform a bit less but saves power. I couldn't find any of those for less than £120.

these are re-4gp HD. Higher specs are with ffys serials.

Forgive my ignorance, would these be suitable for media storage in a desktop pc. Thanks.

I'm using one as such and no problem here. Great price for 2TB enterprise grade HD.

The one in the picture has gone rotten, it's turned into a black one!

Thanks for the quick reply starfarer.
There is no mention of warranty on the amazon page, when I searched for info it was mentioned that these have a five year warranty, can anyone confirm this.
Voted hot btw.

My WD BLack has fzex model code compared to this drive


Western Digital WD2003FYPS RE4 2TB Enterprise 24x7 SATA II 7200RPM 64MB Cache - OEM 1YR WARRANTY
Model Number: WD2003FYPS
£52.99 inc. VAT

on Tekheads.

Not sure what to make of this deal

i wouldn't use these im my pc if i'm looking for fast read/writes, but having said that, i use these a lot in HP servers in raid configurations, fast enough for network users / shared files, these are a very reliable disk, if you need a large disk in your pc to hold files / music and so on that you don't access much or you are not after SSD performance, i would recommend these WD blacks and that's a good price too - HOT
Edited by: "thespongie" 30th Jan 2015

trott3r

Western Digital WD2003FYPS RE4 2TB Enterprise 24x7 SATA II 7200RPM 64MB … Western Digital WD2003FYPS RE4 2TB Enterprise 24x7 SATA II 7200RPM 64MB Cache - OEM 1YR WARRANTYModel Number: WD2003FYPS£52.99 inc. VATon Tekheads.Not sure what to make of this deal



59 with delivery though...

thespongie

i wouldn't use these im my pc if i'm looking for fast read/writes, but … i wouldn't use these im my pc if i'm looking for fast read/writes, but having said that, i use these a lot in HP servers in raid configurations, fast enough for network users / shared files, these are a very reliable disk, if you need a large disk in your pc to hold files / music and so on that you don't access much or you are not after SSD performance, i would recommend these WD blacks and that's a good price too - HOT



I'd recommend people don't take your advice because you don't understand the subject matter.
A gigabit LAN is approximately 95MB-105MB, any hard drive made in the past 10 years of 3.5 inch form factor will do those speeds, seeks times irrelevent as the bottleneck will be the network on that front.
Coupled with the fact nobody runs a NAS with a single drive in/JBOD where the throughput of a single drive would be the above as opposed to an array where you'd be talking a theoretical throughput of multiples of the above and your opinion/advice falls flat on it's face.
Hard drives do slow down as they get filled up, so the last 20% or so does tapper off down to 60-65MB in most cases for slow drives made 8-10 years ago that aren't performance ones but since a drive should never be filled more than 90% in a NAS and since the drive won't be used singular, is irrelevent.

So would this hard drive be good in a NAS?

tekheads.co.uk/pro…tml

overclock.co.uk/pro…tml

Cheaper, I'm not sure why they're dumping these drives but I guess it's because they're the ECO version of the Black WD2003FYPS instead of WD2003FYYS.

Could be old stock




Original Poster

I couldn't find any spec from them on wdc.com

My guess is that WD changes the model number to flag them up as OEM drives and therefore the do not have the 5yr warranty.
The question now is whether is an OEM WD2002FYPS or an OEM WD2003FYYS.

@thespongie could you give use a hand with some insight?

scsi4me.com/wes…tml
It gives a date of 24 July 2011 so the drives have been around for a while now

jaydee777

So would this hard drive be good in a NAS?



It's designed specifically for a NAS.

robo989

I'd recommend people don't take your advice because you don't understand … I'd recommend people don't take your advice because you don't understand the subject matter.A gigabit LAN is approximately 95MB-105MB, any hard drive made in the past 10 years of 3.5 inch form factor will do those speeds, seeks times irrelevent as the bottleneck will be the network on that front.Coupled with the fact nobody runs a NAS with a single drive in/JBOD where the throughput of a single drive would be the above as opposed to an array where you'd be talking a theoretical throughput of multiples of the above and your opinion/advice falls flat on it's face.Hard drives do slow down as they get filled up, so the last 20% or so does tapper off down to 60-65MB in most cases for slow drives made 8-10 years ago that aren't performance ones but since a drive should never be filled more than 90% in a NAS and since the drive won't be used singular, is irrelevent.:)


robo989

I'd recommend people don't take your advice because you don't understand … I'd recommend people don't take your advice because you don't understand the subject matter.A gigabit LAN is approximately 95MB-105MB, any hard drive made in the past 10 years of 3.5 inch form factor will do those speeds, seeks times irrelevent as the bottleneck will be the network on that front.Coupled with the fact nobody runs a NAS with a single drive in/JBOD where the throughput of a single drive would be the above as opposed to an array where you'd be talking a theoretical throughput of multiples of the above and your opinion/advice falls flat on it's face.Hard drives do slow down as they get filled up, so the last 20% or so does tapper off down to 60-65MB in most cases for slow drives made 8-10 years ago that aren't performance ones but since a drive should never be filled more than 90% in a NAS and since the drive won't be used singular, is irrelevent.:)



I had to laugh at your reply about Gigabit Ethernet throughput, while I doubt that anyone would need to sustain a throughput of around 90Mb's+ over a LAN environment at home beyond a few times.

I think your aware most SATA3 drives will burst to around 100Mb's even when transferring between SATA3 drives, due to the nature of most peoples files these days your most likely to see a write speed around 50-70Mb's unless your moving very large single data files between drives were it can sustain pure data movement. Even then the its the controller that's rated to being able to move at SATA3 speeds, often the mechanical components cant match that.

Anyway I think this points are all pointless, the warrant speaks volumes and even if they are pretty much WD blacks I still wouldn't touch them. OEM and 1 year warrantees with Hard drives these days... Well I think your taking a chance with a higher risk, but saying that. Its only my view.

amazon.com/Wes…VNS

review
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful
4 year old disks - these are second hand
By GA on January 20, 2015
Verified Purchase
These are NOT new, the one I just looked at had 25653 hours on it.

No where does it say these are second hand disks
Comment Was this review helpful to you

Are these recertified disks ?

These are re-certified drives and mistakenly listed as new - just search the internet and you will see lots of places selling these re-certified in this price bracket (and in the other HUKD post the OP listed). Then look for new listings and they are all over twice the price. I am sure these are great drives but I wouldn't want to trust my data to any HD that has already been used for 4 years by someone else.

(I am not voting on the price as I don't know if it's a good deal or not)

Defiant306

I had to laugh at your reply about Gigabit Ethernet throughput, while I … I had to laugh at your reply about Gigabit Ethernet throughput, while I doubt that anyone would need to sustain a throughput of around 90Mb's+ over a LAN environment at home beyond a few times.I think your aware most SATA3 drives will burst to around 100Mb's even when transferring between SATA3 drives, due to the nature of most peoples files these days your most likely to see a write speed around 50-70Mb's unless your moving very large single data files between drives were it can sustain pure data movement. Even then the its the controller that's rated to being able to move at SATA3 speeds, often the mechanical components cant match that. Anyway I think this points are all pointless, the warrant speaks volumes and even if they are pretty much WD blacks I still wouldn't touch them. OEM and 1 year warrantees with Hard drives these days... Well I think your taking a chance with a higher risk, but saying that. Its only my view.



Huh?

kester76

http://www.petervis.com/gallery/hard/Recertified_Hard_Drives/Recertified_Hard_Drives.html



Seemed strange that it was a SATA 2 drive. Cheeky that it's not listed as so on amazon.

Original Poster

It does not say re-certified on Amazon at all. It says new and the price could be due to SATA2 interface or smaller size nowadays to be placed in enterprise storage systems.

To be honest being fulfilled by Amazon, if they aren't new, they're the ones loosing as it's going straight back. I'll report whenever I got them next week.

robo989

Hard drives do slow down as they get filled up, so the last 20% or so … Hard drives do slow down as they get filled up, so the last 20% or so does tapper off down to 60-65MB in most cases for slow drives made 8-10 years ago that aren't performance ones



Can you expand on this? When you have multiple platters and a filesystem that spreads itself across a partition, how do you come to this conclusion? With more files, the MFT can grow to a size where it can slow things down, but this is not to do with the drive itself. It'd affect access times for sure, but not read speed (assuming contiguous, but even so, having more files or less files wont make a different on a per file basis). AFAIK, ntfs cannot dictate where on a platter files are stored, this is down to the drive controller.

Edited by: "intranix" 30th Jan 2015

Google the product code and you come back with WD refurbished.

I've just had a HD failure but with triple redundancy, I'm covered. Why save £5 a year on the cost of a used versus new ?

Now running multiple WD Black in the PC and WD Red x 4 in NAS.

robo989

I'd recommend people don't take your advice because you don't understand … I'd recommend people don't take your advice because you don't understand the subject matter.A gigabit LAN is approximately 95MB-105MB, any hard drive made in the past 10 years of 3.5 inch form factor will do those speeds, seeks times irrelevent as the bottleneck will be the network on that front.Coupled with the fact nobody runs a NAS with a single drive in/JBOD where the throughput of a single drive would be the above as opposed to an array where you'd be talking a theoretical throughput of multiples of the above and your opinion/advice falls flat on it's face.Hard drives do slow down as they get filled up, so the last 20% or so does tapper off down to 60-65MB in most cases for slow drives made 8-10 years ago that aren't performance ones but since a drive should never be filled more than 90% in a NAS and since the drive won't be used singular, is irrelevent.:)


]
who's talking about a NAS? did you even read what i wrote?
you're speaking to someone with 18+ years as a network engineer,
i think you'll find that i said that these disks are perfectly fine to be used in a pc as a mass storage device.

Edited by: "thespongie" 30th Jan 2015

From Sep last year but still interesting:

Should we switch to enterprise drives?Assuming we continue to see a … Should we switch to enterprise drives?Assuming we continue to see a failure rate of 15% on these drives, would it make sense to switch to “enterprise” drives instead?There are two answers to this question:


[...]

2. The assumption that “enterprise” drives would work better than “co … 2. The assumption that “enterprise” drives would work better than “consumer” drives has not been true in our tests. I analyzed both of these types of drives in our system and found that their failure rates in our environment were very similar — with the “consumer” drives actually being slightly more reliable.

Original Poster

Should we switch to enterprise drives?Assuming we continue to see a … Should we switch to enterprise drives?Assuming we continue to see a failure rate of 15% on these drives, would it make sense to switch to “enterprise” drives instead?There are two answers to this question:

2. The assumption that “enterprise” drives would work better than “co … 2. The assumption that “enterprise” drives would work better than “consumer” drives has not been true in our tests. I analyzed both of these types of drives in our system and found that their failure rates in our environment were very similar — with the “consumer” drives actually being slightly more reliable.



Very interesting post. I've always suspected that they were all the same but just with some more testing and some firmware tweak, but I could never see any result of it.

However, in this case the rule does not apply as these cost 55 against ~75 from the Red that could be the "consumer NAS drive" as the greens give issues on RAID.

I have 2 consumer samsung drives in raid 1 in my nas with a power hours on value of 42197 but need to upgrade to 2tb so should i get this wd drive or get a new consumer drive for a few pound more? scan.co.uk/pro…Ayw

Are these any good for ps4?

Some manufacturer refurb/recertified drives have all new insides. I have received some via warranty replacements and normally they work fine without about the same failure rate as a new drive.

But if people are reporting that these have 10s of thousands of hours running time according the smart data, they are system pulls that were returned to WD, tested and found to be working okay. No actual refurbishment performed other than a format and test. In that case I wouldn't buy one in a million years.

lurch

I have 2 consumer samsung drives in raid 1 in my nas with a power hours … I have 2 consumer samsung drives in raid 1 in my nas with a power hours on value of 42197 but need to upgrade to 2tb so should i get this wd drive or get a new consumer drive for a few pound more? http://www.scan.co.uk/products/2tb-toshiba-dt01aca200-35-hdd-sata-iii-6gb-s-7200rpm-64mb-cache-8ms-ncq-oem?utm_source=google+shopping&utm_medium=cpc&gclid=CP6F15Xuu8MCFQbkwgodQkYAyw



I have x4 2TB WD Reds in my NAS box in a raidz2 setup, along with x2 1TB WD Greens, in a mirrored setup

sil0

Forgive my ignorance, would these be suitable for media storage in a … Forgive my ignorance, would these be suitable for media storage in a desktop pc. Thanks.



The firmware is set up differently. If you want to use these not in an array you should disable TLER. (Probably by messing around in DOS).

Banned

gingerjohnson

Are these any good for ps4?



Nope, they are physically too large, you need a 2.5 laptop drive

Only 2 left and they are £60.00 now!

Got mine this morning and ran a diagnostic and they are showing zero hours and just the startup count, which would have been mine. Hoping they're good for my little poweredge server.

They are now £125.50.so was a good buy at £55.

Received my drives this morning.

Both reporting zero use and only the single power on count, however one of the drives is already reporting S.M.A.R.T errors and is subsequently being returned.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text