• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

1 Terabyte WD HDD owners (WD1001FALS)

riottime

Junior Member
I am a proud owner of one for a little over 4 months (had it since august of this year). It's housed inside a fanless external enclosure connected via eSata cable. After formatting, it came out to 931 GB.

I used mine as my storeage drive. It's filled with movies, music, vintage roms, and pc games. Unfortunately, I'm down to 17.2 GB (I have a second one on order; the price dropped by $60 when I ordered from Newegg). The new one when it arrives next week will go inside my sff machine instead of another external drive (only have one eStata port on my box; holy mother! I just found out I have two eSata ports in the back; rockin' baby!; so if it's too hot inside, i'll pick me up another external enclosure). I'm hoping it doesn't raise the internal case temperature by too much.

I use my pc heavily for web, movies, pc gaming, everything. I don't like popping dvd into my drive for games or movies that I own. To reduce wear and tear on my opticial drive (and the fact I don't have to go looking for my dvd box), I ripped them onto my nice 1 terabyte drive. I buy lots of dvd and games. So, it gets filled up fast. WD 1 terabyte drive is a god-send. I'm looking forward to the 1.5 and 2 TB drives. Go WD go!

Man, this forum is dead.
 
Heya,

I have several 1TiB WDD HDD's, both external and internal. I filled several with DVD images (.ISO). I hate removable `media' so I digitize everything possible. I like "two clicks" and it just shows up. I put my internals in a headless FreeNAS box and it serves my DVDs and other stored files over my gigabit network (mainly to my gaming/HTPC machine).

Very best,
 
I partitioned the first 200GBs for the OS & apps in my HTPC.
The drives other partition is for storage.
 
I just figured out how much space I would need to store my whole digital collection:

9,448 terabytes

So when are they coming out with petabyte drives? I think petabyte is the next one after terabyte, right?

^ and no, I don't work for WD. I own seagate and maxtor drives too way back when. I didn't pick up the seagate 1 terabyte because of all the bad reviews on newegg.

Crap...I guess I would need a 10 petabytes drive?

TemjinGold -- hah, hah...you blind, buck! 😛

I looked up petabytes on wiki and found this interesting bit:

Petabytes in use
The Internet Archive contains almost 2 petabytes of data.[1]
Google processes about 20 petabytes of data per day.[2]
The 4 experiments in the Large Hadron Collider will produce about 15 petabytes of data per year, which will be distributed over the LHC Computing Grid.[3]
Facebook has just over 1 petabyte of users' photos stored, translating into roughly 10 billion photos.[4]
Isohunt has about 1.1 petabyte of files contained in torrents indexed globally.[5]
As of December 2007, YouTube had a datatraffic of 27 petabytes per month.[6]

Holy, sucka!
 
Originally posted by: MalVeauX
Heya,

I have several 1TiB WDD HDD's, both external and internal. I filled several with DVD images (.ISO). I hate removable `media' so I digitize everything possible. I like "two clicks" and it just shows up. I put my internals in a headless FreeNAS box and it serves my DVDs and other stored files over my gigabit network (mainly to my gaming/HTPC machine).

Very best,

Hey Mal,

what brand/model FreeNAS box do you have, or recommend?
 
I use 5x750 drives on an opensolaris box with ZFS and raidz2. At the time they were most cost effective than 1TB Drives (not anymore).
The OPs useage scenario is really really scary... Using it as main storage without any redundancy is just asking for data loss. (also, why external? it just makes it so much slower).
 
^ I really don't care if it dies. None of the data I really care about or critical for anything (just games, movies, etc). Besides, I have them all backed up in optical media, original CDs/DVDs, etc. Sure, it would be painful to dig through them again. Sure, I could setup a raid. Sure, I could setup a file server like you. But what's the point? Why spend all that time setting up crap like that for something that isn't critical?

External because it's using fast eSata. Plus I was concerned about internal temps in my SFF box.

^^ Because I don't own other 1 terabytes drives just the WD in subject. Any other crap question you want to know? Like maybe why the sky is blue or somethin'? 😛
 
I suspect the term "Peta-" will be used to describe the U.S. Government Budget Deficit long before PetaByte arrays become common. 😛

An irony in the creation of a "huge" data collection is that, even if the data itself isn't valuable or is available on other media, the COLLECTION itself becomes valuable only because of the time it would take to re-create it.
 
An irony in the creation of a "huge" data collection is that, even if the data itself isn't valuable or is available on other media, the COLLECTION itself becomes valuable only because of the time it would take to re-create it.
Which is why I budget so much for data retention, I am spending cents per hour of work it took me to collect the data to protect it, well worth the investment.
 
Originally posted by: Team Spicoli
Originally posted by: MalVeauX
Heya,

I have several 1TiB WDD HDD's, both external and internal. I filled several with DVD images (.ISO). I hate removable `media' so I digitize everything possible. I like "two clicks" and it just shows up. I put my internals in a headless FreeNAS box and it serves my DVDs and other stored files over my gigabit network (mainly to my gaming/HTPC machine).

Very best,

Hey Mal,

what brand/model FreeNAS box do you have, or recommend?

FreeNAS is the OS. It's free. www.freenas.org

There are specific NAS devices that you can buy, that are very expensive for the sake of being very small, very limited, all-in-one solutions with very little expandability and often times do not have gigabit network adapters. You'll find NAS devices (with no drives!) for $100+ easily. Well, you can build your own NAS for that, and it will have WAY more connectivity, expandability and options. Any computer can become a NAS. So long as it has hard drive space and a network connection, it can become a NAS. You don't need anything special. Windows can be a NAS box. Or you can load something light like FreeNAS.

For someone who wants a NAS that is always on and always available, a light FreeNAS machine would be perfect. For someone who only wants to access the NAS sometimes, like only during the day and it's just them, they can easily just have any old machine function as a NAS while running Windows, Linux, or whatever else you may prefer. The point of FreeNAS is to have an OS that runs headless (no monitor/display), and no input devices required (no keyboard, no mouse), and you just access it via the web (it has a web gui, you control the machine remotely over your network). It's meant to be on all the time like this. Not everyone needs that. So a simple machine with Windows or just any free version of Linux even can be a NAS `server' if you will, just by being on and sharing HDD space (very simple to setup). But, those OS's need input to control and shut down (unless you activate remote desktop and do it like that, available in windows, which you can do!).

With NAS you could even use RAID to setup a massive capacity storage, or just let the drives be separate and individual for access. RAID5 is a great way to have a big capacity and uptime in a NAS box. Personally, I would just go for separate disks though, because you can't expand a RAID array without rebuilding it, and after a few terabytes you may just not want to have to deal with moving it around to rebuild an array. I add gigs of data per month, so I don't use RAID for my NAS--I just let the disks stay separate and access them as individuals.

Here's an example of a very expandable NAS machine (build it yourself, save tons of money, get tons of expandability and options):

Great NAS motherboard @ $55
CPU @ $57
Optical Drive @ $24
2GB of RAM @ $24
Good 500W PSU @ $40
Good NAS Case @ $50

There's the machine itself. It's just a computer. But, select specific parts for the job. The case has 6 internal 3.5" bays for hard drives and supports ATX or MicroATX. The motherboard supports up to 6 SATA drives. The motherboard has built in video, so you don't need a separate videocard. The cpu selected is powerful and cheap, with it's own heatsink & fan. Good memory for cheap. The motherboard also has gigabit lan, so it supports 10/100/1000 (and you want 1000mb) for NAS, so that you can transfer files fast. At gigabit speeds, it'll work over the network as fast as an eSATA drive would, easily, so it's great speed.

So $250 for the actual NAS box.

Again, any old computer would do. If you have an old computer, you can bring it to life just by putting some HDD's in it and setting it up as a network accessible storage unit. The one I setup here is $250 because I went for lots of connectability. 6 built in connections for HDD's and way more CPU/RAM than you would actually need, ever, for a NAS. I would do that because you never know when you might want to actually use that Computer for something more, like Home Theater (as it could instantly be used for that, having everything it needs for that too actually!). So that computer above is both an HTPC and NAS if you wish--very handy.

From there, you need a gigabit capable router.

And then it's just time to add your HDD's and whatever OS you're going to use.

Here's the HDD's I would use: WD10EADS, 1 Tb @ $120

The drive is an update from it's previous version, a green drive, great performance, low power usage, and a good price. Just add them as you need them. Prices keep going down.

As for the OS, you can run FreeNAS as listed above (Freenas.org) or you could just run something like Windows and enable remote desktop so that you can control it headless with another computer (to shut it down, etc).

Very best,

 
I bought one about 3 weeks ago, used it to replace 3 drives: 300GB//300Gb//500GB combo into a single main drive. works pretty well, is defintiely faster than my 3 old drives. mostly for my high def home videos. i don;t play game nowadays so that saves lots space for me. I like mine, very quiet, and don't get too hot except when I copy lots stuff off it.

one of these just buy it, install it and just forget it drive. it takes care of itself. love it. 5 yr warranty too!
 
Originally posted by: RebateMonger
I suspect the term "Peta-" will be used to describe the U.S. Government Budget Deficit long before PetaByte arrays become common. 😛

An irony in the creation of a "huge" data collection is that, even if the data itself isn't valuable or is available on other media, the COLLECTION itself becomes valuable only because of the time it would take to re-create it.

Well, since you put it that way, it took some time to get them all on the tera-drive. I had to organize everything and setup windows media center. So loosing the data would hurt, but not enough for me to go all paranoid and buy/setup a NAS.

MalVeauX -- I would setup one but it's going to slow down my web browsing and suck big time. Plus, it's a security risk if you're on DSL. Someone could hack into your NAS and really buck it up. Then the speed problem with going over network. eSATA is way better. It's faster than USB/1394. Plus, it only requires an external enclosure not another computer.

nyker96 -- All the games that I've played on mine is like it's connected inside my case. The speed is really good for eSATA connection. I haven't noticed any slow down. I can play all the big games fine: Far Cry 2, Crysis Warhead, Fallout 3, and GTA IV. I can watch HD movies without a hitch. I really love it. I can't wait until the 2nd one arrives. I'm down to a measely, 10 GB left. 😛
 
Originally posted by: riottime
MalVeauX -- I would setup one but it's going to slow down my web browsing and suck big time. Plus, it's a security risk if you're on DSL. Someone could hack into your NAS and really buck it up. Then the speed problem with going over network. eSATA is way better. It's faster than USB/1394. Plus, it only requires an external enclosure not another computer.

Where are you getting this information? None of it is accurate.

A NAS has zero impact on your web browsing. For starters, old 10/100 protocol LAN's already basically have a bandwidth that is similar to 10megs per second. That's slow for big file copying but it's fine for smaller files, and unless you're on 100mb Cable (which I know you're not, probably not even on better than 10mb Cable service), then you can't even come close to filling the bandwidth from your internet connection. And if you read through what was displayed, the point was to put gigabit networking on the NAS. That's 1000mb networking, which is the equivalent of 100 megs per second. Your HDD's can't even go that fast. Let alone your internet connection and HDD bandwidth together. Still can't fill that bandwidth unless you have seriously fast HDD setups (like RAID0). It's no more a security risk on DSL than any other connection and on top of that, is no more a risk than the computer you're using right now. NAS has zero to do with `internet'. It's a storage device on your network. Your internet connection should be coming through a hardware router with a firewall, not directly plugged into your computer. NAS is for networks. That assumes you're on a network, ie, there is a router/switch with several devices attached (ie, multiple computers likely) and in our case, a NAS device (essentially just another computer on the network). eSATA is not way better. It's potentially faster than gigabit networking if you can somehow manage to copy at a sustained rate of 300megs per second (3.0gps SATAII). None of our HDD's can do that. Not even a lot of RAID0 setups can get there without 4+ drives or the new SSD drives. That bandwidth is way too high to even come close to filling right now. And since you're talking about DSL speed, I know you can't come close to even filling a fraction of it. USB is slow, capped at 480mb (or about 40 megs per second). eSATA is good for one machine with external SATA ports to connect to. NAS only requires a network, which you already have if you're on broadband. And if you haven't clued in yet, the point is to serve several machines without having to be directly or discretely connected to a single one of them--being a network attached storage device. If you want an `external storage' means that can grow, a NAS is that. If you just want a single 1TB drive that connects to one machine at a time, that's where your eSATA comes in. Don't confuse speeds. Gigabit networking is faster than your typical eSATA HDD can even sustain.

USB external drive - Something for someone who wants to connect to whatever machine, simply, as USB is so universal and standard. It's slower, stopping around 480mbs.

eSATA external drive - Something for someone who wants to connect to a machine with an external SATA port (limits who and what it can be connected to), but you get a much faster speed, since it can be up to 3.0gps SATAII speeds, though you will never get a single eSATA drive to come close to even filling a 3rd if not 4th of that bandwidth potential.

NAS - Something for someone who wants to be able to take several HDDs and serve them to ANY device capable of accessing a local network (and even a wireless network if you wish) without a specific nor discrete connection to any of them with gigabit networking (1.0gps). The benefit is way better speed than USB, enough speed to keep up with today's HDD speeds (SATA), but the ultimate benefit is that you can keep adding drives to the enclosure (which you have total control over) to increase your external storage as you need to with ONE power connection, instead of several for each external drive you normally would have to power in order to gain access to simultaneously.

Very best,

 
Well, since you put it that way, it took some time to get them all on the tera-drive. I had to organize everything and setup windows media center. So loosing the data would hurt, but not enough for me to go all paranoid and buy/setup a NAS.
NAS has NOTHING to do with data security. NAS = network attached storage, it is about making your data available via the home network.
Protecting your data means RAID and backups.
a NAS box CAN have redundancy, or it can be a simple single drive with an ethernet controller.
 
MalVeauX -- Ah, hah. But with eSATA, you don't need 1 gbit network setup. I have 10/100 Mb network. My DSL is around 1 Mb. It would seriously slow my network/web browsing down if I setup a NAS. The total cost over performance over benefit is much less going with an external enclosure and eSATA hard drive than to setup a 1 gigabit NAS network. eSATA > NAS.
 
NAS IS an external enclosure feature, so is eSATA...
Also you would not slow down your network/web at all, because 1mbps is a drop in the sea for a local connection... gigabit is also really cheap today.
Anyways, do whatever you want.
 
I like it. I dunno what I'm going to put on it, but it cost the same as the 320gb drive I bought a year ago. It's much quieter than my old seagate as well. Yay for cheap, fast storage.
 
Originally posted by: MalVeauX
Originally posted by: riottime
It would seriously slow my network/web browsing down if I setup a NAS.
eSATA > NAS.

You just don't get it, do you?

Very best,

I have a gigabit net setup to xfer files between two machines. One has the WD FAL 1TB drive. another has a seagate 32mb//640gb drive. The throughput is HD speed limited. so I would think NAS to machine setup won't be slower than eSATA connections. Although if external enclosure works well for you already, why not. Except a NAS box allows 5-6 drives in the same machine.
 
Originally posted by: nyker96
Originally posted by: MalVeauX
Originally posted by: riottime
It would seriously slow my network/web browsing down if I setup a NAS.
eSATA > NAS.

You just don't get it, do you?

Very best,

I have a gigabit net setup to xfer files between two machines. One has the WD FAL 1TB drive. another has a seagate 32mb//640gb drive. The throughput is HD speed limited. so I would think NAS to machine setup won't be slower than eSATA connections. Although if external enclosure works well for you already, why not. Except a NAS box allows 5-6 drives in the same machine.

Actually, I think some of my machine have gigabit onboard. I'm not sure about my switch/router. I'm pretty sure my DSL modem is 10/100 mb based. Don't you need cat5 cables that work with 1gb network? At least one that are rated to work at 1 gb speeds.

SlitheryDee -- I know. How fast prices drop on HD. Like 4 months ago when I bought my first 1 tb drive, it was $60 more than when I just ordered (on route to my place this week). So if I wait another 4 months, maybe it'll go down an additional $60. In which case, I'll buy another. I'm sure I'll have the 2nd one filled up by that time. 😛

MalVeauX & taltamir -- I'll see if you guys are right. I'll do a test transfer between two of my macines over network and see how fast it is while surfing the web on one of them. But only if I find out that they're all 1 gb. I guess if my switch (used to have a hub but it died on me) can't handle 1 gb speed than there is no point in trying. 😱

Update:

Nevermind. My cat5 cables won't work with 1 gb network. Oh, well. I don't think I'm going to go buy new cables just to try this out. 🙁
 
check this out... http://www.walmart.com/catalog....do?product_id=5007540

And anyways, we said that the point of nas was not a matter of speed compared to eSATA. It has to do with configuration and accessibility.
If it is ONE DRIVE for ONE MACHINE than internal connection via SATA is fastest, followed by eSATA with NAS last.

What we were saying that speed isn't the only issue, data safety should also be considered, as well as accessibility of information.
 
Back
Top