• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Western Digital RE4-GP WD2002FYPS 2TB 64MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Hard Drive

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hmm, interesting, no, not yet anyways.

But I've been expecting something along these lines, two of these or so might be in my future for an external backup

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=703

I don't know where this reviewer has been hanging out though the RE3's have had dual processors awhile now :)

edit *I just threw that review up there because it looked interesting I'm not even that familiar with the site BTW. Like I said before the reviewer seemed a bit clueless on some things :) *
 
Last edited:
I am still a little scared of the >1 TB disks. Seagate's infamous failures have pretty much put the kebash on ultra high density disks right now. (I know brand loyalty if for noobs, but I only buy WD)

If this one pans out for the most part, I am just w00t.
 
I'm seriously considering getting 6 of them for my RAID5 array. I've always used Seagate drives and had no real problems with them. With what happened recently with the Seagate drives has me a little shy of buying again. Besides, Seagate doesn't have 2TB drive out.
 
I'm just a WD fanboy to begin with I guess, have had Seagate drives with short lives in my past and a few others :)

I avoid using em myself I guess.

Personal preference I suppose.

:beer:
 
Last edited:
Does anybody here reminisce about "The Good Old Days?" I ran across this thread because I am getting ready to put some of these into cold storage. I bought them years ago from another member here and they have been pretty close to bullet proof. I had to chuckle when I read

> I am still a little scared of the >1 TB disks. Seagate's infamous failures have pretty much put the kebash on ultra high density disks right now.

I did have a couple of those 2TB Seagates and they were hot garbage. But no longer "ultra high density"

These are in a test server, but I'd have no problem using them in my "production" environment. The only reason I'm taking them out of service is that I have 3 4TB HDDs I can use instead, freeing up some room in the case and reducing the power usage. Of the 6, only 2 have developed remapped sectors, 2 for one and 32 for another. One has 71113 power on hours - over 8 years. And it's the one with 32 remapped sectors.

Apologies for necro-posting.

Ah... the good old days!
 
Back in the day I used to use RAID 0. Great way to get extra speed from the old 7200 RPM HDDs. I even had several pair of the WD Raptor drives spinning at 10k in RAID 0 for a time. I still have some of those Raptors in use on project machines.

Since SATA SSDs, I've not bothered. NVMe's are even faster and thus I haven't looked into RAIDing them myself.

Downside of RAID 0 is that if you lose 1 drive, you lose them both. Data is fragile in this configuration.
 
...lol, the necro and then random (highly searchable) question...

...this was useful to me back in the day on spinners and maybe SATA-based SSDs. Since NVMe drives came out, there's really no need for 99% of users to run a RAID0. Now, if you want some redundancy (1/5/10 etc.), sure.......just remember RAID MODES WITH REDUNDANCY DOES NOT REPLACE BACKUPS!!!
 
EarthDog said:
...lol, the necro and random question...

...this was useful to me back in the day on spinners and maybe SATA-based SSDs. Since NVMe drives came out, there's really no need for 99% of users to run a RAID0. Now, if you want some redundancy, sure.......just remember RAID MODES WITH REDUNDANCY DOES NOT REPLACE BACKUPS!!!
Click to expand...
That's a good point. RAID 1, 5, 6, 10 etc can have redundancy but if the machine gets toasted, burnt, destroyed; all data is still lost. If a virus hits one drive it hits them all. Backups, if done right, prevent permanent data lose. Rotating backup media. Stored in a completely different location, etc.

RAID 1 and up can prevent data lose if one or more drives fail (depending on RAID level) but cannot protect you with catastrophic damage.
 
I forgot about my last RAID 0 setup (that wasn't part of a retro build). I had a pair of 64GB SSDs & wanted one larger drive. These two small ones had been on sale for much less that the cost of a single 128GB SSD at the time. I remember the RAID 0 config was somewhat faster, but it was more about the larger capacity for me.

I've played with RAID 0, 1, 5, & 10 in the past using 2, 3 & 4 drive combos. It was a lot of fun & frustration at the time, getting it all to work properly.
 
Any more I use Unraid which is a very fancy JBOD. I have Parity but the parity drive has to be equal to or greater in size to any disk in the array. I can still lose any one disk and rebuild all of my data. No speed advantage but I do have an SSD cache drive that will hold all of the data I dump to the array and move it to the array over time. The array (for me and most other users) are spinning HDDs and therefore a bottleneck on my 2.5Gb network if the data set is large enough. The SSD takes up most of that slack.

So similar fun to playing with RAID. RAID is really cool and useful stuff.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Max0r
Hard Drive Product Lines & Reliability Factors in 2022
Replies
12
Views
1K
ihrsetrdr
ihrsetrdr
V
ASUS ROG Strix X570-F SMART Failure Predicted on SATA Hard Drive
Replies
3
Views
818
dejo
dejo
O
New drive with 100gb used?!
Replies
7
Views
1K
HankB
HankB
O
First Time Build
Replies
7
Views
616
trents
trents
F
Looking to upgrade my system for a nominal price...need some suggestions and adv
Replies
3
Views
783
Joe88
Joe88
Back