dealswestern digital caviar 2tb 64mb cache sata 3.0gb…

vote-for24vote-against
vote-for-1vote-against

This is a Green model, so it only spins at 5400 RPM. Plus the reviews are less than stellar with 26% of reviewers giving it one egg.

Not in for one.

vote-for2vote-against

@majhimujhuko: First, a 2TB drive is obviously meant for file/video storage. Speed generally isn't that important. If you were concerned about speed, you'd have an SSD anyway.

Second, rotational disc speed is not the only factor that plays into data transfer rates. I would encourage you to read through this review of WD Green drives.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/15769
Just one of the other factors it mentions is the increase in platter density thereby allowing them to eliminate one platter altogether. This increases transfer rates, while allowing power used to decrease even further. All while rotational speed stays the same.

If you're dead set on wanting a specific RPM number, many have found multiple manufacturers "green" drives to be around ~5900RPM. But allow me to take an excerpt from the above article:
Those nerdy enough to dig through data sheets or online reviews to find a drive's spindle speed are going to know that it's not the only factor that dictates performance.

vote-for2vote-against

@firebirdude: This.

It's also important to understand the context in which most of these failures occur. I notice an alarming amount of people saying that they are RAIDing green drives. If you're putting a green drive in an array, methinks you are missing the point of RAID.. but I digress. RAID is rough on green drives (really, any drive that's not enterprise class), so that will cause increased failures.

Plus, it's important to understand that irate customers are hardly a good indicator of a fab or drive's overall quality. Reviews show interesting trends, but are hardly scientific and shouldn't be treated like scientific evidence. Bottom line, all drives fail and you MUST have a backup. Keep that in mind and you'll have a much easier life.

vote-for4vote-against

Nice to see prices finally dropping after the "Thailand's a disaster, so we're going to gouge the CRAP out of you on drives for a while" stance.

OTOH, notice how the gouging on spinning drives caused an increase in SSD sales, which has brought those prices tumbling on everything but the very large (512 GB) drives. When you can get a top of the line Samsung SATA3 256 GB drive on sale for $219 (Newegg this week), things are good.

vote-for2vote-against

@majhimujhuko: I've had about a 66% success rate with the WD green drives. Had 5 and two failed quite prematurely. IIRC there was a bad round of them at one time and I got one of them. Aside from those two, they others have been solid performers.

vote-for0vote-against

@firebirdude: Except that I always partition larger drives for different purposes. Therefore, speed IS an issue for me. However I was unaware of some of that information in that article, so thank you for the correction. As for being "nerdy enough" to find spindle speed... I was also unaware that basic specs were obscure; I've never had any issue reading product descriptions.

And I do have an SSD. I love it.

vote-for1vote-against

@txag98: 80% of the WD drives I've owned have all failed within 1-2 years. I must have the worst luck ever :(

vote-for1vote-against

@chipmunkofdoom2: It wouldn't surprise me if the drives are actually good, but they're just taking themselves offline for maintenance and lower energy consumption, in which case the RAID controller would see them as dead (hell, maybe they are dead, I've had that sort of luck with WD too). That being said, I wish RAID was practical with what it was made for (Redundant Array of INEXPENSIVE Drives), but I guess your point was on green drives over inexpensive ones anyways...