This is the second WD RED drive that I have used in my Synology NAS. The first one had bad sectors within the warranty period and was replaced.

This particular drive worked without any issues in the aforementioned NAS for almost 4 years. I had no complaints, neither in terms of speed, noise, nor anything else. Overall, I was satisfied, as its usage was quite mild (I don't do anything extreme), and I just wanted a drive that would give me peace of mind, rather than worry about speed or performance. So, I went ahead and purchased this drive, which is specifically designed for NAS use, to have peace of mind, as I mentioned earlier.

After 4 years, it suddenly developed bad sectors, and my Synology alerted me to replace it. If I had used it intensively, I wouldn't have had an issue, but having to replace it within 4 years with such mild usage was disappointing, mainly because of its selling price. Note that the NAS is always connected to a UPS. I have the impression that the quality of hard drives is declining over time, and manufacturers are not making them as they used to. Nowadays, we have reached the point where we change hard drives more frequently than we change light bulbs in our rooms. In short, the warranty period of the drive now coincides with its lifespan, at least that's the impression I get. If we all knew that drives of this type last for 4-5 years of use, none of us would pay that much for them, but we would all prefer the simpler drives. I have read that it may be a matter of a "bad" batch, etc., but I conclude that it is more a matter of luck (which drive will fall into your hands) and the low quality standards of the manufacturers. Moreover, the hard drive market has essentially been consolidated into the hands of two companies, with all that this entails for competition, prices, and the circulation of quality products.

Therefore, while I remained satisfied in terms of performance and noise, I was disappointed in terms of reliability. It's a mediocre product, and since this is the second time I have had issues with this brand, I can no longer say that it's a matter of coincidence or misuse. When you pay a premium price for a hard drive intended for NAS use, you expect higher reliability due to the higher price. That's why you pay more, otherwise, we would all buy the simple and cheaper drives. If there is no such reliability, which is advertised by the company, then it is better for them to give two drives at the price of one to keep a backup of the data of the first one... at least this way, the preservation of the data is ensured!

To replace it, I ordered a drive from another company, hoping for a better outcome.

I didn't intend to write a review for this disk because there are already many, but few mention speed and the most recent one talks about 25 MB/sec sequential write from the same disk to the same disk, which doesn't make sense to me since such use is extremely rare and depends heavily on the operating system and the program doing the copying. So, I thought I'd add my own experience regarding speed. Currently, I'm copying a movie from an SSD to the RED at 125 MB/sec. My motherboard was purchased in 2011 and I'm using the default integrated Intel SATA controller (82801JR ICH10R). I assume that with a modern motherboard, it's very likely that someone will see higher speeds (145 is mentioned in one review). Also, I'm currently copying a folder with a WordPress site with 5500 files at 14 MB/sec (if you include the initial speed that lasts as long as it writes to the cache, the average is around 18), which may seem a little slow, but my old WD Black drives with more cache and dual I/O controllers are slower. The disk (RED) is divided into three partitions, all of which are over 90% full, and the copy is made to the middle partition, which is theoretically slower than the first but faster than the last. However, even if it were twice as slow or had half the IOPS, I still wouldn't care because these disks are exclusively for storage, and maybe for a stream that has a limit of 25 MB/sec (200 Mbit) on 4k Blu-ray. Anyone who cares about sequential read can make a 4-disk RAID 0, and anyone who cares about IOPS can get a PCIe SSD. The disk, as most people write, is exactly what you expect, quiet and doesn't raise temperatures. How many years it will last is a matter of luck and use, but compared to the competitor Backblaze, it is said to be much more reliable and has tested thousands.

I bought this disk for use in a NAS and expected it to perform accordingly. I am extremely disappointed with its speed. In sequential space for a large file from the same disk to the same disk, it does not exceed 25MB/s. It feels like I've gone back two decades.

Additionally, it spins down constantly like WD's green disks, and I can't figure out how to adjust it differently, at least from firmware and without OS hacks. I wonder why anyone would pay more for this compared to a green disk. Probably just to have it running 24/7 and enjoy the fact that they're buying enterprise.

The spin-up is *slightly* faster than the equivalent green disk, but still noticeably slow during routine work (especially moments when you're trying to save something and because the last location was on the disk, Windows makes it spin up at that moment, causing the entire program to freeze until the disk starts up and you wait.)

I bought it out of immediate need and unavailability of the equivalent (in category and money) Hitachi (which is now owned by WD but has kept separate production lines), and if I had the choice, I would exchange it at any time. I don't think any other disk can be much worse, and when the failure rate statistically favors the competitor, there's no room for this one here.

Certainly, you get what you pay for, and certainly, the disk is not made for performance (like black, etc.). However, the gap between this disk and others is too large.

The real measure for those who know about IT infrastructure installations, especially NAS/servers, is the cost per terabyte and the speed per watt. This specific one costs 39 euros/TB. Currently, in 2015-2016, there is no better disk for a similar usage scenario with a better ratio. The golden ratio is still at 3TB and then at 4TB. If you get smaller or larger disks, you will simply pay more for each TB of capacity, often without reason. So, once you clarify in your mind the environment and the usage scenario, choose the appropriate disks for the corresponding task. For multiple backups in FreeNAS-type arrays or backup devices like Drobo, Qnap, Synology, this specific disk has the best price-to-performance ratio. And something very basic that many forget, it's different for a 6TB disk to fail and require replacement and rebuild in the system, and a smaller one like this, with half the capacity. This means that the rebuild takes HALF the time, as the disk is smaller, and it also costs LESS, because a large expensive disk did not fail but a medium one did. And in environments with high backup requirements, this means some waiting time, which for professionals and businesses is more valuable than simple money loss. Therefore, prefer to have this disk many times over a larger one. Also, you reduce the MTBF, "spreading" it across many disks. The money and time you save in case of data loss are more important. Plus, from a certain number of disks and beyond, you get "free" TB from the euros that the cost per disk decreases in the array. If, for example, you save 5-10 euros per TB per disk, in an 8-12 disk array with replication, it's like getting another disk for free. We always talk about NAS. In servers, the gain is even greater. So, for those who want a simple RAID system with 2-4 mirror disks inside the PC with removable slots, then it's better to look at another model, such as Black. Having worked with various usage scenarios in different environments, I recommend this RED for those who want a cheap NAS or a removable backup in a server. Don't even think about using it in a regular system, it's not made for this use. Nowadays, every disk and model is intended for a specific use. If you want a disk for Desktop/Server for all tasks, then you should look at a larger model, such as Blue, Black, Enterprise, or RE as far as Western Digital is concerned.