Where are the 4tb BF deals?

[tr0910]

I haven't seen anything remotely interesting, not even external 4tb.  Are we out of luck?

[insaneavi]

I agree with you, but I can see how most vendors won't price reduce 3-4TB drives what % would be interested. I hope that one vendor puts some high capacity drives on sale without mail in rebates.

[whiteatom]

Would be nice.. I'm really hoping to see 3 or 4TB WD Reds go on for some great discount - in Canada. Newegg.com deals so rarely do me any good.

[tr0910]

I have 14 2tb drives that need to be replaced with 7 4tb drives. Would like to not buy anymore 3tb drives.

 

Sent from my mobile

 

 

[Superorb]

I have 14 2tb drives that need to be replaced with 7 4tb drives. Would like to not buy anymore 3tb drives.

 

Sent from my mobile

 

Going to sell off the 2TB drives for cheap? 

[damelon]

Seagate Internal 4TB Drive ST4000DM000 will be $139 on B.Friday.  Not "Great" but a good deal.  Still the 3TB deals are much more cost effective. (3 Drives I've seen now will be under $90)

 

 

[mark_anderson_us]

I'm looking for 4TB WD Red or Seagate NAS.

 

Already picked up a two 4TB Seagte externals for $119 and $139 each (after rebates and offers), but there just for temp desktop storage and ISO backups on desktop

 

 

[garycase]

Still the 3TB deals are much more cost effective.

 

Matter of opinion.  Cost/TB isn't the only factor to consider.  The 4TB WD Reds and Seagate NAS units are only $200 or so these days ... yes, $50/TB is more than $30/TB that you can get bargain basement 3TB drives for => but reliability, power consumption, number of drives required to reach a target capacity, etc. are other factors that are equally important.

 

The lowest cost drives are good extra drives for backups; but for the drives I'm running 24/7 I want the reliability of a NAS-qualified unit.

 

 

 

[mark_anderson_us]

Still the 3TB deals are much more cost effective.

 

Matter of opinion.  Cost/TB isn't the only factor to consider. 

The lowest cost drives are good extra drives for backups; but for the drives I'm running 24/7 I want the reliability of a NAS-qualified unit.

 

Agreed.  I buy the cheapies for temp storage and stuff like DVR recordings, but my media lib and archives are on NAS-specific drives. Will be putting backup server (local backup of NAS) in garage and will use cheapies for that too.

[tr0910]

I have had far more failures caused by cabling and backplanes than ever by drive failures.  Unless there is real difference in performance or energy use, I don't buy into the WD and Seagate revenue maximization scheme called NAS. 

 

Me thinks it's mostly just a different colored sticker.

 

[garycase]

Certainly your choice.    But there is absolutely a reliability difference between the desktop drives;  the NAS units; and the enterprise class drives.    The cost differential between NAS units and enterprise class drives is more than I'm willing to pay [$387.99 for the 4TB Seagate Constellations and $387.05 for the 4TB WD RE drives at the moment] ==> but the modest difference between the NAS units and desktop drives is easily worth the difference (at least to me).

 

I do buy the lower-cost units when I need extra backup drives, although most of my backup drives are units that have been superseded by higher capacity drives.

 

 

 

[BobPhoenix]

For me it comes down to the longer warranty on the WD Red/Seagate Nas drives.

[wsume99]

But there is absolutely a reliability difference between the desktop drives;  the NAS units; and the enterprise class drives.

That is a pretty big assertion. If you cannot provide a reliabile source of data to backup such a statement then it is only your opinion.

[mark_anderson_us]

But there is absolutely a reliability difference between the desktop drives;  the NAS units; and the enterprise class drives.

That is a pretty big assertion. If you cannot provide a reliabile source of data to backup such a statement then it is only your opinion.

 

Plus, WD will not warranty desktop drives in a NAS/RAID. Of course, they need to figure out it was in a RAID/NAS

[garycase]

But there is absolutely a reliability difference between the desktop drives;  the NAS units; and the enterprise class drives.

That is a pretty big assertion. If you cannot provide a reliabile source of data to backup such a statement then it is only your opinion.

 

Since you don't trust Western Digital, it's unlikely you'll put much credence in their reliability numbers;  but they show 600,000 hrs MTBF for the green series drives, and 1,000,000 hrs MTBF for the Red drives.    In addition, they back up the Red drives with a 50% longer warranty.

 

Note that the Enterprise drives have MTBF's between 1.4 million and 2 million hours, depending on the specific model (the RE series is 1.4 million; the XE series is 2 million).  And they have 5 year warranties.

 

 

[wsume99]

But there is absolutely a reliability difference between the desktop drives;  the NAS units; and the enterprise class drives.

That is a pretty big assertion. If you cannot provide a reliabile source of data to backup such a statement then it is only your opinion.

 

Since you don't trust Western Digital, it's unlikely you'll put much credence in their reliability numbers;  but they show 600,000 hrs MTBF for the green series drives, and 1,000,000 hrs MTBF for the Red drives.    In addition, they back up the Red drives with a 50% longer warranty.

 

Note that the Enterprise drives have MTBF's between 1.4 million and 2 million hours, depending on the specific model (the RE series is 1.4 million; the XE series is 2 million).  And they have 5 year warranties.

Where did I say that I did not trust WD? I don't trust any of the OEM's published failure rates. WD Green drives have a published failure rate of 600,000 hours - that is more than 68 years. Do you believe those numbers? I am more interested in real world life data from people/companies that actually use these drives. Sure Red, RE, XE drives have a better life rating but how does that equate to actual life? What's not to say that internally the drives are identical and they just charge more to cover the longer warranty or perform some type of burn-in testing to weed out infant mortality?

 

Seeing as how this is the unraid forum I assume that nearly all of us are using parity protection so what is the big concern about drive reliability anyways? We've spent time & money to setup a system that can tolerate drive failures yet so many on this forum seem to still fear a drive failure to the point where they are willing to spend a lot of extra money to get more "reliable" drives. Why do you need the latter if you've done the former? Would I buy a drive if I knew I could get one that is more reliabile for just a few $$'s more? Probably not but how can I tell which ones are more reliable and how much more reliable are they? I don't think the answer to that question is found on the OEMs MTBF specs. In the end I think that all purchases come down to value and different people value different things. As far as I can tell there is no right or wrong answer and we all have our opinions.

[garycase]

MTBF figures are computed for electronics using a rigorous testing process -- they're not just pulled out of a hat, or changed for marketing purposes.    You said "... If you cannot provide a reliable source of data to backup such a statement then it is only your opinion."

 

I was simply providing you what I consider a reliable source of reliability data for their drives.

 

Note that MTBF for ANY item is NOT a prediction of life expectancy ... it's simply a guide to overall reliability.

 

NO drive ... and NO system ... is going to be 100% reliable.  That's why any data you care about should always be stored on at least two different systems -- i.e. the whole reason for BACKUPS.

 

With the modest cost difference between the desktop drives and NAS drives, I think the more reliable drives and longer warranties are worth the difference.    Despite the fault-tolerance, I'd still prefer to have as few failures as possible 

 

I do not think the further jump in cost to enterprise-class drives is worth it ... especially since they're used in a fault-tolerant server in a home environment.    But that's my preference -- as you noted, everyone has to make that choice.  Note that the enterprise-class drives also have an order of magnitude better error rate than the desktop and NAS drives (the latter are 1 in 10^14, the enterprise units are 1 in 10^15).

 

 

[bw1]

Seagate Internal 4TB Drive ST4000DM000 will be $139 on B.Friday.  Not "Great" but a good deal.  Still the 3TB deals are much more cost effective. (3 Drives I've seen now will be under $90)

 

Do you have more info/link for this $139 deal on 4TB ST4000DM000 Internal?

[eesnard]

Seagate Internal 4TB Drive ST4000DM000 will be $139 on B.Friday.  Not "Great" but a good deal.  Still the 3TB deals are much more cost effective. (3 Drives I've seen now will be under $90)

 

Do you have more info/link for this $139 deal on 4TB ST4000DM000 Internal?

 

try this one

http://bfads.net/Item/Tiger-Direct-Black-Friday-Seagate-4TB-Internal-Desktop-HDD-ST4000DM000/173224

 

and 4TB Seagate NAS 159.99

http://bfads.net/Item/Tiger-Direct-Black-Friday-Seagate-4TB-NAS-Drive/173331

 

[damelon]

Seagate Internal 4TB Drive ST4000DM000 will be $139 on B.Friday.  Not "Great" but a good deal.  Still the 3TB deals are much more cost effective. (3 Drives I've seen now will be under $90)

 

Do you have more info/link for this $139 deal on 4TB ST4000DM000 Internal?

 

It will be at tiger direct, though it shows the current price now.  Will change on the 29th.

 

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?sdtid=6460706&EdpNo=7739052&SRCCODE=LINKSHARE&cm_mmc_o=-ddCjC1bELltzywCjC-d2CjCdwwp&utm_source=Linkshare&utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_campaign=lw9MynSeamY&AffiliateID=lw9MynSeamY-..9h0TgjRRnk_KNZoq9RMQ

 

[tr0910]

Unless there is a last minute addition, it looks like $139 will be the lowest for USA, and $149 for Canada.  Here is the Amazon 4tb external for Canada. (free shipping)

 

http://www.amazon.ca/dp/B00829THLE