FreshRSS

🔒
❌ À propos de FreshRSS
Il y a de nouveaux articles disponibles, cliquez pour rafraîchir la page.
À partir d’avant-hierFlux principal

Synology NAS and Hard Drive Compatibility in 2022 – Should I Be Worried?

18 février 2022 à 00:00

Synology NAS and Hard Drive Compatibility in 2022


If you have been a long-running advocate of Synology NAS over the years, or have been elbow deep in the Synology eco-system for a long time, then there is every chance that you have heard that the biggest brand in the world of network-attached storage has been changing a few of the guidelines on their higher profile devices these like 18-24 months.

Synology Media – How This all Started?


Synology has been in the business of network-attached storage solutions (in software, services and hardware) for well over 20 years now and in that time have established a largely unblemished record of providing high-end hardware+software combination solutions that allow home and business users to have their own private servers. This hardware that arrived in a wide spectrum of configurations of scale, pricing and utility were provided with the understanding that the media needed (HDDs and SSDs) to store your data inside was to be sourced by popular third party brands such as Western Digital, Seagate and Toshiba. All this started to change back in 2019/2020 when Synology started offering its own range of branded hard drives and solid-state drives (the HAT5300, SNV3400/3500 and SAT5200). These drives, though engineered and built by Hard Drive and SSD manufacturing veterans, also feature Synology optimized firmware and allowed system-specific advantages that otherwise might have been unavailable using “3rd party” hard drives. Now, when this range of media was initially launched, most were perfectly positive about this move!



Those who already had a number of their figurative eggs in Synology baskets could see the logic – the brand produces the hardware, released their branded memory, branded PCIe upgrade cards, branded routers and therefore the move to produce their own branded media to further bolster this in-house eco-system made sense (side note – Where is the Synology Switch? Not the SG1000, but an actual Synology managed switch?). Moreover, these HDDs and SSDs were quite enterprise in design (high workloads and endurance, architecture that very much lived in the postcode of the data center user in most cases). It was only a few lone voices that raised concerns that the brand might start changing how they approached compatibility and support on their growing range of solutions.

How Support on the Synology Drive Media Changed in 2021/2022?


Therefore it came as something sharp gear change for many when Synology announced that a number of their enterprise solutions that were released in 2021 (and featured in the 2022 series) would arrive with much stricter compatibility in terms of storage media. Solutions that were very much outside the budget of home users in the XS and above ranges would now only be designed for use with the Synology branded range of media HDDs and SSDs. Utilizing the bulk of non-Synology media (such as Seagate Ironwolf, WD Red, Ultrastar DC and more) would not be formally supported by the Synology software, with the brand highlighting that this would be using the system in a means that they did not design and limiting the support they could provide to the end-user. Now, this limited media compatibility on their hardware had been somewhat foreshadowed, with the release of their 2020 generation PCIe upgrade cards, the M2D20 SSD caching card and E10M20-T1 SSD+10G combination upgrade card, both of which were rather strictly limited to Synology media. The utility of non-Synology branded HDD/SSD media at the start of 2022 is still available by the brand, but in a handful of circumstances that range from migration of media from an existing Synology NAS system to a new enterprise series device or there have been a few reports online of exceptions to this rule when media types (such as SAS SSD) were not available in the Synology media portfolio, yet supported on the system. Even then, this is not a watertight ruling and is something that comes from mixed reports online. Right now, there are give or take around 10 solutions in the Synology NAS portfolio that have this Synology-only media compatibility policy in place and although there is an argument that enterprise solutions such as these are targetted at buyers who will likely be keen on an ‘all in-house’ solution (such as those on offer from the likes of NetApp and EMC), there are those that are less keen on the brand shunning the use of WD/Seagate drive media that they may have been using for the better part of two decades at least.



Utilizing non-Synology media in these enterprise solutions at the start of 2022 will not entirely restrict the end-user(s) from forming a storage pool, volumes and more with this drive media installed, but the results can not really be thought of as tremendously compelling. Aside from numerous notifications from the system informing the user that they are using media that does not feature on the official compatibility list of their device and stability and support may well be undermined, there is also a persistent message on the notifications panel and in the storage manager that this area of storage is classed in ‘Critical’ status – i.e Danger! Many were concerned/unsure whether this would mean that ignoring this warning by the system would result in the Synology support being invalid and to clarify this, I raised this with a senior Synology manager and will touch on that shortly in the (‘what happens next’ section).



Further to this, there is the extent to which this policy and recent change in position by Synology extends. As mentioned, there is a certain degree of understanding of this being a move by the brand on the enterprise level of solutions. These are high-end business-class servers that are designed to be used practically indefinitely until their retirement for the next server after and stability, accessibility and reliability are the order of the day! Therefore the brand offering these solutions to end-users with this expectation and recommending specific media to achieve this is understood, if not fully appreciated by everyone. However, when the DS2422+ 12-Bay diskstation NAS featured this same position on compatibility, despite it being a part of the ‘PLUS’ series of devices and arriving with a 3-year warranty, gave many certain pauses for thought. Yes, a 12-Bay desktop solution is quite far removed from a home system for many, as well as featuring a number of hardware similarities for the beefier DS3622xs+, but it did seem like the tiniest bit of a stretch in the eyes of many and added a little bit of grey to the black and white support position of non-Synolgoy media in the 2021/2022 range of solutions from Synology.

The Logic of Synology and Their Place in the Market


Now, stepping back slightly from these changes and looking at the moves from Synology over the last 5 years, it has become increasingly clear that Synology is making considerable moves towards challenging SaaS and PaaS (Software and Platform ‘as a service) hybrid users at the very top end. Before this, Synology was almost exclusively a software+bare metal provider and it was only when they released, promoted and rapidly evolved their C2 cloud platform that this ambition and long term plan became evident. Having a single in house ecosystem that manages your business data that covered your company data, client data and increased native connectivity with Google/Microsoft SaaS components is great for smaller operations, but what about multi-site ops? International setups and in situations where backups, synchronization and access need to be complex enough to ensure security, yet fluid enough to ensure that the user base can use it in their day to day operations. It was/is a bold strategy that requires them to spread themselves perhaps a little thinner than they might like (as they have a tremendously large Home/SMB user base that has little-to-no interest in these lofty services, they need to continue to support) but definitely a road they are proceeding down and it is this mixed clientele of users that has led to the friction by many of the recent moves by the brand.



Now, if Synology is attempting to fully migrate/transform their enterprise business model into this highest of hybrid service solutions, as it stands they are still missing a few key components that the current providers offer (albeit behind further subscription services in some cases) such as 24×7 support lines, Next day replacements media, gaps in their media portfolio in interfaces and capacities to name a few). There are options to migrate existing setups in remarkably intuative and seamless ways, as well as premium-level services in some regions that close the gaps somewhat (though unfortunately are not globally available) and their C2 platform is a great deal more than just a cloud space. But if indeed Synology is making these moves to enter this market as a significant player (as all the evidence would suggest), then I do not think we are at the end of the road yet.

Synology NAS, & Drive Media in 2022 – What Happens Next?



There has been noticeable discontent amoung Synology user community on this policy by the brand, which can be broken down into two key areas of focus. The first is that the brand might be shifting its gears too heavily towards the upper tears of Enterprise Hybrid storage and devices and potentially neglecting/limiting the other user groups who have chosen Synology NAS solutions because of the brand’s reputation to support. The other area of discontent is the way in which the media recommended compatibility changes in these most recent generation releases has been related to the end-user. Referring to perfectly operating hard disks and SSDs as ‘critical’ or ‘unstable’ in red warning text appears somewhat of an overreaction. I reached out to a senior member of the Synology product team and they provided this reply:


We have always recommended only using the drives tested and verified by our engineers to ensure long-term system reliability many many years ago. While non-verified drives can still be used on all devices, the updated policy is being introduced on new products primarily purchased by our business and enterprise clients in an effort to highlight the potential issues with using them. The policy still allows for the use of non-verified drives but with certain restrictions, such as status indicators and alerts indicating the system is not in an officially supported configuration and certain drive metrics not being supported. At the same time we understand that there is room for improvements to the user experience while still ensuring our customers are aware of the issue. In an upcoming DSM update, we are adjusting the alert level shown and also adding drive S.M.A.R.T. monitoring for unverified drives.


So, it would look like the comments on multiple social message boards (Facebook, Reddit, Syno Forums, etc are at the very least being read), However, for many this message does not fully cover the question of detailing the level of support that the brand will indeed provide in the event of perfectly reasonable failure. I raised this matter with Synology with the following examples for guidance (as I felt they covered a cluster of existing scenarios posed by users online):


Example #1, a Synology DS3622xs+ or DS2422+ owner purchases their unit and 12 Seagate EXOs HDDs, then 36 months down the line they suffer an unexpected (but perfectly reasonable) PSU failure. Will the brand support this user and provide a replacement PSU?


Alternatively, Example #2, if the hardware failure (still within perfectly reasonable parameters of hardware that is mass-produced of course) is controller board based? Where will the utility of non-Synology media stand?


A senior Synology manager provided the following response and clarification:


When a customer makes a technical support request, our engineers will work with them in troubleshooting the cause of the issue and to find a solution to resolve it. If it is determined that a failure is directly attributable to a 3rd-party component that has not been validated by Synology, our engineers may make the decision to reject continuing the diagnostics process. This is carried out because in many cases, there is little that our engineers can do without having those exact components on hand to replicate the problem and then determine a way to workaround or mitigate them.


This clears the muddy waters a little and seems to indicate that failures that are not related to the use of 3rd party media will be handled ‘as usual’. Still, the fact that some features of the storage manager might be unavailable with the use of non-Synology drive’s in these recently released enterprise systems will still be a tough pill to swallow for many.

Where do I stand on Synology Hard Drive Media and Compatibility in 2022?


I have been following and publishing videos and articles on the development of Synology Hard Drive & SSD media now for a little over two years and despite the newer releases in this part of the brand’s portfolio, I have largely remained the same in my thoughts and feelings on it. The HAT5300 are good quality drives which (if the price point in relation to the rest of the market, i.e. comparable to Seagate EXOS and WD Ultrastar, but arriving more at the WD Red Pro and Seagate Ironwolf Price per TB etc) and certainly should be in the lineup. When it comes to stricter system compatibility, as long as it is reserved for the enterprise tier, I can see the reasoning – though I am not convinced it should be the ONLY option and if Synology could loosen their tighter hold on this (or at least detail where unsupported HDD/SSD use could potentially impact how/where their support the end-user – Software? Hardware? Just at the Storage Pool and above?), that would be the best option for all. When the compatibility list for the DS2422+ was made available, I highlighted my reservations on this in my original initial coverage of the device (and referenced it in a few later videos around the subject) that although the Diskstation 12-Bay was still largely a business user focus device (12 bays of expandable storage is rarely something for the day-to-day user), it is still a PLUS series device. I have not got any qualms with Synology aimed their sites at the highest tiers of hybrid storage, it makes a lot of sense and although the brand is still not quite as established of have the wider resources available to the end-users to rival the top tier contenders, they DO provide the best alternative to these right now and year on year, the brand improves upon their C2 Cloud to Metal on-site synchronization with improved results.



Like many, I am awaiting confirmed details on the newer DSx22+ series of devices (if a refresh is to make it this year) and I very much doubt that Synology would limit these system’s media compatibility, taking a similar position to their current one of SHR and RAID. That is to say, that they feel SHR is suitable for the Home, Prosumer and SMB tier, but the higher-end business and Enterprise user tier demand the performance of the more mature standard RAID configurations. Additionally, the HAT5300 media would be tremendous overkill in a much more modest 2-Bay or 4-Bay (DS922+, DS722+, DS222j, blah, blah, blah) both in the drive’s workload/durability and just power consumption and ambient noise. However, if Synology announces a value series HDD alternative that is also based on the Toshiba NAS N300 NAS tier and compatibility on the value tier begins to emulate what we have seen so far, that is something I will have more trouble supporting. As this would place their products into a near ‘pre-populated’ style of solution for home users that many who have invested in the Synology ecosystem would find tremendously restrictive.


For more information on how me and Eddie the web guy feel about the Synology Hard Drive position, the brand’s moves over the last few years towards the enterprise tier, brand support and more, we published a big piece on this below and although its a long video (chapters underneath), it covers EVERYTHING.



Video Chapters


00:00 – GET YOUR BACKUPS IN ORDER!


01:00 – Synology Hard Drives, An Introduction to the Media


02:25 – Why People are angry about Synology NAS and Hard Drive Compatibility?


05:30 – How Synology Hard Drive and SSD Begun


08:50 – Pros and Cons of the Synology HAT5300 and HAS5300 Hard Drives


13:10 – Business and Enterprise NAS User’s Point of View


14:40 – Why Has Synology Changed their Hard Drive Compatibility on Enterprise Servers in 2022?


15:00 – WHY does Eddie thinks Synology Are Changing Elements of its Enterprise Business Model?


18:25 – WHY Robbie thinks Synology Are Changing Elements of their Enterprise Business Model?


22:10 – The XS series and SHR, An Example of Synology Choice and Priority


23:55 – Synology NAS in 2022 and the Future of the brand?


29:45 – What does Eddie think Synology will do regarding Hard Drive Compatibility on the 2022 J, Value, Play and Prosumer Plus in the future?


32:15 – What does Robbie think Synology will do regarding Hard Drive Compatibility on the 2022 J, Value, Play and Prosumer Plus in the future?


37:00 – Expectations from the end-user when someone buys a Synology NAS?


37:50 – Synology Support/Warranty on a NAS with 3rd Party HDDs if the PSU, CPU or Controller Board Fails?


40:35 – How Could Synology have pleased Everyone and STILL have it their way?


 


This is not something that has been concluded or resolved at the time of writing, but I will follow up on this as things change. Thanks for reading my ‘standing on a soap box’ article and I look forward to hearing your thoughts too in the comments below.


 

📧 LET ME KNOW ABOUT NEW POSTS 🔔

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,460 other subscribers


Get an alert every time something gets added to this specific article!


Want to follow specific category?

This description contains links to Amazon. These links will take you to some of the products mentioned in today's content. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Visit the NASCompares Deal Finder to find the best place to buy this device in your region, based on Service, Support and Reputation - Just Search for your NAS Drive in the Box Below


Other products mentioned on this article:  

SEARCH IN THE BOX BELOW FOR ANY OTHER NAS

Need Advice on Data Storage from an Expert?

We want to keep the free advice on NASCompares FREE for as long as we can. Since this service started back in Jan '18, We have helped hundreds of users every month solve their storage woes, but we can only continue to do this with your support. So please do choose to buy at Amazon US and Amazon UK on the articles when buying to provide advert revenue support or to donate/support the site below. Finally, for free advice about your setup, just leave a message in the comments below here at NASCompares.com and we will get back to you. Need Help? Where possible (and where appropriate) please provide as much information about your requirements, as then I can arrange the best answer and solution to your needs. Do not worry about your e-mail address being required, it will NOT be used in a mailing list and will NOT be used in any way other than to respond to your enquiry. [contact-form-7] Terms and Conditions Alternatively, why not ask me on the ASK NASCompares forum, by clicking the button below. This is a community hub that serves as a place that I can answer your question, chew the fat, share new release information and even get corrections posted. I will always get around to answering ALL queries, but as a one-man operation, I cannot promise speed! So by sharing your query in the ASK NASCompares section below, you can get a better range of solutions and suggestions, alongside my own.  

Seagate Ironwolf 525 vs 510 NAS NVMe SSD Comparison

29 décembre 2021 à 01:10

Comparing the Seagate Ironwolf 510 vs Seagate Ironwolf 525 – Which Should You Use in Your NAS?

The Seagate Ironwolf series of NAS media has been around for a few years now and what started as a rebranding of their ‘NAS’ labelled series has now become a multi-tiered series of Hard drives and SSDs. Recently Seagate introduced a new entry into their Ironwolf SSD series with the 525 NVMe SSD. Presented as a higher bandwidth supporting alternative NVMe SSD to the Ironwolf 510 (released back in March 2020), the Ironwolf 525 is a PCIe Gen 4 NVMe SSD that arrives in slightly larger capacities, much higher performance and still allowing backwards compatibility with PCIe Gen 3 m.2 slots in your NAS. So, with the release of this newer, faster and widely supported NVMe SSD, should you still consider buying the Seagate Ironwolf 510 at all? Well, yes! The older Ironwolf 510 still arrives with a few rather unique architecture and design choices that are not available in the Ironwolf 525 and today I want to take a close look at each of these NAS focused SSDs and help you decide which one you should buy for your NAS drive in 2021/2022.

Important – It is worth remembering that the two SSDs in today’s comparison are m.2 NVMe in architecture and although PCIe Gen 4 is compatible with Gen 3 and old, they will not suitable for NAS drives with M.2 SATA connections. We have seen more modern NAS systems released in the last few years abandon m.2 SATA in favour of its PCIe counterpart, but Seagate provides SATA alternatives in their Ironwolf series. Examples of SATA SSDs for NAS can be found HERE on Amazon. Additionally, it is worth highlighting for the later stages of testing in this comparison, I was only able to obtain the 240GB model of the Ironwolf 510, so although the performance shown is low (and much lower than the Ironwolf 525 as expected in most cases) it is particularly low because the test drive is the 240GB Model. Please follow the official performance specifications in the table below for a better indication of how comparable capacity drives would differ.

How do the Seagate Ironwolf 525 and Seagate Ironwolf 510 SSD Compare on Specs?

Seagate are well known for their wide ranges of hard drive and SSD media, as well as both being pioneers of NAS server focused SSDs for caching and flash storage. Although SSDs are all built to a similar ground-level architecture, they will often have their later development shifted in favour of a specific targetted use. This is not a big surprise and much like the cutlery in your kitchen draw, they might be similar but one tool is much better at some tasks than others – ever tried using a spreading butter with a meat-claver? Or stirring tea with a ladle? The Seagate Ironwolf 525 and Seagate Ironwolf 510 SSD are NAS targetted and although the performance is good, the true stand out factor in this design is the durability of the drive. SSDs for use in NAS systems will in most cases be used for caching and that means a very frequent turnover (i.e. data wrote, updated, deleted, repeat) daily as the demands of client users and devices change. Both of these SSDs arrive with a high level of durability and workload rating, but the Seagate Ironwolf 510 and Seagate Ironwolf 525 definitely have differing ideas of preliminary architecture and what that price tag is being spent on. Let’s look at the shared base-level SSD architecture of each SSD (available on every capacity):

Below Specifications are taken from official brand sources, data sheets and reputable sources (real-world tests we performed ourselves are a little lower in the article):

Specifications

Seagate IronWolf 525

Released September 2021

Seagate IronWolf 510

Released March 2020

Warranty 5yr + 3yr Rescue 5yr + 3yr Rescue
MTBF/MTTF 1800000 1800000
PCIe Generation PCIe Gen 4×4 PCIe Gen 3×4
NVMe Rev NVMe 1.3 NVMe 1.3
NAND Kioxia BiCS 4 96L 3D TLC NAND Kioxia BiCS3 64L TLC
Controller PS5016 SSD Controller PS5012-E12DC

Seagate uses 3rd party controllers and NAND manufacturers for the most part in their ranges, but are still generally quite top tier providers. The release time difference between the Seagate Ironwolf 510 and Seagate Ironwolf 525 makes an impressive difference here in terms of the hardware on offer on either SSD, with the more recently released Seagate Ironwolf 525 having notably superior connectivity, NAND quality and overall performance. Both Seagate Ironwolf SSDs features 3 years of forensic level data recovery services though (which caching NAS users might want to have in the event of ‘trapped data’ during write caching operations and a critical system failure/power-cut) which is very unique to the brand. However, overall the Seagate Ironwolf 525 has the superior architecture here. Below is how the building blocks of the Seagate Ironwolf 525 and Seagate Ironwolf 510 result in throughput, IOPS and Durability at each capacity tier (based on officially provided figures):

240/250GB

Seagate IronWolf 525

Released September 2021

N/A

Seagate IronWolf 510

Released March 2020

ZP240NM30011 – $69

Sequential Read (Max, MB/s), 128 KB N/A 2,450MB
Sequential Write (Max, MB/s), 128 KB N/A 290MB
480/500GB ZP500NM30002 – $99 ZP480NM30011 – $119
Sequential Read (Max, MB/s), 128 KB 5000MB / 3400MB 2,650MB
Sequential Write (Max, MB/s), 128 KB 2500MB / 2500MB 600MB
960/1000GB ZP1000NM30002 – $179 ZP960NM30011 – $209
Sequential Read (Max, MB/s), 128 KB 5000MB / 3400MB 3,150MB
Sequential Write (Max, MB/s), 128 KB 4400MB / 3200MB 1,000MB
1920/2000GB ZP2000NM30002 – $369 ZP1920NM30011 – $409
Sequential Read (Max, MB/s), 128 KB 5000MB / 3400MB 3,150MB
Sequential Write (Max, MB/s), 128 KB 4400MB / 3200MB 850MB
3840/4000GB N/A N/A
Sequential Read (Max, MB/s), 128 KB N/A N/A
Sequential Write (Max, MB/s), 128 KB N/A N/A
240/250GB N/A ZP240NM30011 – $69
Random Read (Max, IOPS), 4 KB QD32 N/A 100K
Random Write (Max, IOPS), 4 KB QD32 N/A 12K
2480/500GB ZP500NM30002 – $99 ZP480NM30011 – $119
Random Read (Max, IOPS), 4 KB QD32 420K / 420K 193K
Random Write (Max, IOPS), 4 KB QD32 630K / 550K 20K
960/1000GB ZP1000NM30002 – $179 ZP960NM30011 – $209
Random Read (Max, IOPS), 4 KB QD32 760K / 640K 345K
Random Write (Max, IOPS), 4 KB QD32 700K / 565K 28K
1920/2000GB ZP2000NM30002 – $369 ZP1920NM30011 – $409
Random Read (Max, IOPS), 4 KB QD32 740K / 640K 270K
Random Write (Max, IOPS), 4 KB QD32 700K / 565K 25K
3840/4000GB N/A N/A
Random Read (Max, IOPS), 4 KB QD32 N/A N/A
Random Write (Max, IOPS), 4 KB QD32 N/A N/A
Heatsink Option No No
TBW Rating 700/1400/2800 435/875/1750/3500
DWPD Rating 0.7 DWPD 0.9-1.0 DWPD
Note – BLUE Text is the Seagate Ironwolf 525 on a PCIe Gen 3×4 Slot

Overall, it should come as no surprise that the Seagate Ironwolf 525 is the notable leader here in practically all official benchmarks over the slightly older Seagate Ironwolf 510 SSD, thanks to that improved architecture. Most notably in write performance and IOPS in general, it had a clear lead even in the lowest available capacities. Of course, these are officially provided performance figures and represent maximums based on the highest available hardware at the time of release. Let’s take a look at how these two SSDs compare in our own tests.

How Did the Seagate Ironwolf 510 and Seagate Ironwolf 525 Compare in OUR Tests?

Moving away from the official performance stats provided by WD and Seagate, I wanted to see how the Seagate Ironwolf 510 and 525 compared in my own tests. Testing of these two SSDs will be broken down into 3 main parts, a CrystalDisk Benchmark test, Atto Disk Benchmark Test and an AJA media test. In each test, the SSD was in the 2nd storage slot (i.e not the OS drive). Each test was conducted three times and the system was left for 1 minute between tests to allow the SSD time to stabilize. The specifications of the test machine are:

Test Machine:

  • Windows 10 Pro Desktop System
  • Intel i5 11400 Rocket Lake – 6-Core 2.6/4.4Ghz
  • 16GB DDR4 2666MHz Memory
  • Intel B560M mATX Motherboard
  • OS Storage, Seagate Firecuda 120 SSD
  • Test SSD connected to Secondary PCIe Gen 4×4 M.2 Slot

CrystalDisk 1GB Test File – Read, Write, 70/30% Mixed and IOPS Performance

CrystalDisk is still highly regarded as one of the most reliable tools for measuring storage media performance. Though it does create somewhat high-end results that may not be truly indicative of your own real-world setup, it can be used to display maximum potential throughput and IOPs at each tier. The first test for the Seagate Ionwolf 510 and Seagate Ironwolf 525 was on a 1GB test file:

Seagate Ironwolf 525

Seagate Ironwolf 510 SSD

Overall Winner: The Seagate Ironwolf 525

CrystalDisk 4GB Test File – Read, Write, 70/30% Mixed and IOPS Performance

The next test was to perform the same parameters in CrystalDisk on the Seagate Ironwolf 525 and Seagate Ironwolf 510, but this time with a 4GB test file (larger files may result in higher sequential performance, but lower comparative IOPS):

Seagate Ironwolf 525

Seagate Ironwolf 510 SSD

Overall Winner: The Seagate Ironwolf 525

ATTO DiskBenchmark 256MB Test File – Read, Write

Switching things up, I then moved testing the Seagate Ironwolf 510 and Seagate Ironwolf 525 over to ATTO disk benchmark. A far more detailed tool that spreads performance testing over different file and block sizes. I started with the smallest ‘full range’ test file of 256MB (as smaller would reduce the range of block sizes). Here is how each SSD compared:

Seagate Ironwolf 525

Seagate Ironwolf 510 SSD

Overall Winner: The Seagate Ironwolf 525

ATTO DiskBenchmark 4GB Test File – Read, Write

Sticking with ATTO DiskBenchmark, I then moved the testing of the Seagate Ironwolf 525 and Seagate Ironwolf 510 onto a x16 bigger test file of 4GB. This would certainly shift where the peaks in performance would sit and hopefully produce a clearer disparity between these two SSDs:

Seagate Ironwolf 525

Seagate Ironwolf 510 SSD

Overall Winner: The Seagate Ironwolf 525

AJA 1080i Media Test 1GB Test File – Read, Write

I then switched to AJA, a popular media testing tool for video formats. Most SSDs will suffer over-saturated Memory/DRAM/SDRAM as sustained large file tests go on. The 1GB file test of AJA on the Seagate Ironwolf 525 and Seagate Ironwolf 510 is still a small enough value not to be a problem though and we chiefly focused on the disk playback/reads graph to see how they compared in peak performance and also throughout the transfer:

Seagate Ironwolf 525

Seagate Ironwolf 510 SSD

Overall Winner: The Seagate Ironwolf 525

AJA 1080i Media Test 16GB Test File – Read, Write

Then we used a much, MUCH heavier test in AJA of 16GB on the Seagate Ironwolf 510 and Seagate Ironwolf 525. Unsurprisingly this can often overflow the SSD cache/memory on board and result in a dip in performance as the SSD bottlenecks internally. So, when conducting this test, we are looking at peak performance AND how long the SSD maintained that performance before a potential dip. Here is how these two SSD compared:

Seagate Ironwolf 525

Seagate Ironwolf 510 SSD

Overall Winner: The Seagate Ironwolf 525

Seagate Ironwolf 525 vs Seagate Ironwolf 510 SSD – The Results

It is probably no surprise that the Seagate Ironwolf 525 is the better drive overall. With performance in throughput and IOPS that outshine the Ironwolf 510 in both Read and Write on a PCIe Gen 3 m.2 slot,  then upping the ante considerably by allowing 2-3x that performance via a PCIe 4 M.2 Connection. That said, the adoption of PCIe 4 x4 as the connection of choice in a NAS is currently very low indeed, largely down to the large availability of PCIe 3 SSDs in the market AND the simply fact that manufacturers would need to dedicate notably more CPU PCIe Lanes to a Gen 4 connection than they would a Gen 3 (lanes that might be better used in improved NAS external connectivity or other hardware services). Additionally, the Seagate Ironwolf 510 has higher durability in all capacities, as well as a smaller 240GB capacity for those considering caching on much smaller systems/HDDs. The Seagate Ironwolf 525 is still the better SSD choice over the Ironwolf, but if you see it at a bargain price, have intensive data re-writes in mind or are looking for a smaller SSD, it’s still a viable option. And don’t forget, both SSDs include that 3 year Rescue Data Recovery service and Seagate Ironwolf Health Management that is accessible via your NAS Storage Manager (supported on Synology, QNAP, Asustor and more).

The Seagate Ironwolf 525 NVMe SSD Wins on:

  • Higher Performance (Read & Write), even in a PCIe Gen 3 Slot
  • Supports PCIe Gen 4 M.2 NVMe SSD Slots
  • Better Sustained Performance
  • Massively Higher IOPS ratings (Read and Write)
  • Takes Advantage of a several gen higher Phison Controller

The Seagate Ironwolf 510 NVMe SSD Wins on:

  • Higher Durability at 0.9-1.0 DWPD on all Capacities (IW 525 t 0.7 DWPD)
  • Smaller 240GB Capacity Available
  • PCIe Gen 3 is still at more than 95% adoption on NAS systems compared with PCIe 4
  • Been available longer, so might have more flexible pricing online

 


Articles Get Updated Regularly - Get an alert every time something gets added to this page!


This description contains links to Amazon. These links will take you to some of the products mentioned in today's content. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Visit the NASCompares Deal Finder to find the best place to buy this device in your region, based on Service, Support and Reputation - Just Search for your NAS Drive in the Box Below

 

SEARCH IN THE BOX BELOW FOR NAS DEALS

Need Advice on Data Storage from an Expert?

We want to keep the free advice on NASCompares FREE for as long as we can. Since this service started back in Jan '18, We have helped hundreds of users every month solve their storage woes, but we can only continue to do this with your support. So please do choose to buy at Amazon US and Amazon UK on the articles when buying to provide advert revenue support or to donate/support the site below. Finally, for free advice about your setup, just leave a message in the comments below here at NASCompares.com and we will get back to you. Need Help? Where possible (and where appropriate) please provide as much information about your requirements, as then I can arrange the best answer and solution to your needs. Do not worry about your e-mail address being required, it will NOT be used in a mailing list and will NOT be used in any way other than to respond to your enquiry. [contact-form-7] Terms and Conditions Alternatively, why not ask me on the ASK NASCompares forum, by clicking the button below. This is a community hub that serves as a place that I can answer your question, chew the fat, share new release information and even get corrections posted. I will always get around to answering ALL queries, but as a one-man operation, I cannot promise speed! So by sharing your query in the ASK NASCompares section below, you can get a better range of solutions and suggestions, alongside my own.  

 

#RunWithIronWolf This unit was supplied by @seagate and the preview provided was free of bias and my own independent opinions

WD Red SN700 vs Seagate Ironwolf 510 SSD for NAS Comparison

15 décembre 2021 à 01:22

Comparing the Seagate Ironwolf 510 vs WD Red SN700 SSD – Which Should You Use in Your NAS?

Over the last few years of NAS Drive releases from brands like Synology, QNAP and Asustor, we have seen most Prosumer and SMB releases arriving with support of either M.2 NVMe SSD bays, or PCIe slots that allow you to add this feature in the system’s lifespan. The appeal of SSD cache has grown considerably in recent years, as the demands in speed and responsiveness of the data on NAS drives has grown considerably. Despite the well-established fact that SSDs are faster than Hard drives, there is no ignoring that the available capacity and price point of hard drives makes them ultimately more viable and desirable in a NAS than SSDs. However, SSD Caching serves as a nice middle ground, allowing you to enjoy the bigger and lower cost hard drive RAID storage pools, but also adding two or more individual SSDs to bolster the system in performance. The Seagate Ironwolf 510 and WD Red SN700 are SSD’s that are designed with NAS use in mind and can be used in the process of write caching (where data is written to the faster performing SSD first, then migrated over to the HDDs), read caching (whereby more frequently accessed data is copied over to the SSDs in order to seed up their access by connected clients) or both together. There are numerous other SSD caching methods and protocols, but these are ultimately the most common and today I want to help you decide which NAS SSD you should install in your NAS Drive. There is around an 18-month release date difference between these two SSDs and although both are M.2 NVMe PCIe Gen 3×4 SSDs, there is a large degree of difference in their architecture to take into consideration. So let’s compare the WD Red SN700 and Seagate Ironwolf 510 and see which one deserves your cache.

It is worth remembering that the two SSDs in today’s comparison are m.2 NVMe in architecture and although PCIe Gen 4 is compatible with Gen 3 and old, they will not suitable for NAS drives with M.2 SATA connections. We have seen more modern NAS systems released in the last few years abandon m.2 SATA in favour of its PCIe counterpart, but both Seagate and WD both provide SATA alternatives in their Ironwolf and WD Red series. Examples of SATA SSDs for NAS can be found HERE on Amazon.

How do the WD Red SN700 and Seagate Ironwolf 510 SSD Compare on Specs?

Both WD and Seagate are well known for their wide ranges of hard drive and SSD media, as well as both being pioneers of NAS server focused SSDs for caching and flash storage. Although SSDs are all built to a similar ground-level architecture, they will often have their later development shifted in favour of a specific targetted use. This is not a big surprise and much like the cutlery in your kitchen draw, they might be similar but one tool is much better at some tasks than others – ever tried using a spreading butter with a meat-claver? Or stirring tea with a ladle? The WD Red SN700 and Seagate Ironwolf 510 SSD are NAS targetted and although the performance is good, the true stand out factor in this design is the durability of the drive. SSDs for use in NAS systems will in most cases be used for caching and that means a very frequent turnover (i.e. data wrote, updated, deleted, repeat) daily as the demands of client users and devices change. Both of these SSDs arrive with a high level of durability and workload rating, but the Seagate Ironwolf 510 and WD Red SN700 definitely have differing ideas of preliminary architecture and what that price tag is being spent on. Let’s look at the shared base-level SSD architecture of each SSD (available on every capacity):

Below Specifications are taken from official brand sources, data sheets and reputable sources (real-world tests we performed ourselves are a little lower in the article):

Specifications Seagate IronWolf 510

Released March 2020

WD Red SN700

Released September 2021

Warranty 5yr + 3yr Rescue 5yr
MTBF/MTTF 1,800,000 1,750,000
PCIe Generation PCIe Gen 3×4 PCIe Gen 3×4
NVMe Rev NVMe 1.3 NVMe 1.3
NAND Kioxia BiCS3 64L TLC Sandisk 96L 3D TLC NAND
Controller PS5012-E12DC WD NVMe Controller

As you might know, WD develops practically all of their SSDs ‘in-house’ and feature proprietary NVMe controllers, subsidiary company NAND (in this case Sandisk) and this allows them to be able to control availability and pricing in a way that most other SSD brands cannot. Seagate uses 3rd party controllers and NAND manufacturers for the most part in their ranges, but are still generally quite top tier providers. The release time difference between the Seagate Ironwolf 510 and WD Red SN700 makes an impressive difference here in terms of the hardware on offer on either SSD, with the more recently released WD Red SN700 having notably superior connectivity, NAND quality and overall performance. The older Seagate Ironwolf 510 SSD features 3years of forensic level data recovery services though (which caching NAS users might want to have in the event of ‘trapped data’ during write caching operations and a critical system failure/power-cut) which is very unique to the brand. However, overall the WD Red SN700 has the superior architecture here. Below is how the building blocks of the WD Red SN700 and Seagate Ironwolf 510 result in throughput, IOPS and Durability at each capacity tier (based on officially provided figures):

240/250GB Seagate IronWolf 510

Released March 2020

ZP240NM30011 – $69

WD Red SN700

Released September 2021

WDS250G1R0C$55

Sequential Read (Max, MB/s), 128 KB 2,450MB 3,100MB
Sequential Write (Max, MB/s), 128 KB 290MB 1,600MB
Random Read (Max, IOPS), 4 KB QD32 100,000 220,000
Random Write (Max, IOPS), 4 KB QD32 12,000 180,000
Total Terabytes Written (TBW) 435TB 500TB
DWPD 0.9-1.0 DWPD 1.0DWPD
480/500GB ZP480NM30011 – $119 WDS500G1R0C$79.99
Sequential Read (Max, MB/s), 128 KB 2,650MB 3,430MB
Sequential Write (Max, MB/s), 128 KB 600MB 2,600MB
Random Read (Max, IOPS), 4 KB QD32 193,000 420,000
Random Write (Max, IOPS), 4 KB QD32 20,000 380,000
Total Terabytes Written (TBW) 875TB 1000TB
DWPD 0.9-1.0 DWPD 1.0DWPD
960/1000GB ZP960NM30011 – $209 WDS100G1R0C$152.99
Sequential Read (Max, MB/s), 128 KB 3,150MB 3,430MB
Sequential Write (Max, MB/s), 128 KB 1,000MB 3,000MB
Random Read (Max, IOPS), 4 KB QD32 345,000 515,000
Random Write (Max, IOPS), 4 KB QD32 28,000 560,000
Total Terabytes Written (TBW) 1,750TB 2000TB
DWPD 0.9-1.0 DWPD 1.0DWPD
1920/2000GB ZP1920NM30011 – $409 WDS200G1R0C$289.99
Sequential Read (Max, MB/s), 128 KB 3,150MB 3,430MB
Sequential Write (Max, MB/s), 128 KB 850MB 2,900MB
Random Read (Max, IOPS), 4 KB QD32 270,000 480,000
Random Write (Max, IOPS), 4 KB QD32 25,000 540,000
Total Terabytes Written (TBW) 3,500TB 2500TB
DWPD 0.9-1.0 DWPD 0.7DWPD
1920/2000GB N/A WDS400G1R0C$649.99
Sequential Read (Max, MB/s), 128 KB N/A 3,430MB
Sequential Write (Max, MB/s), 128 KB N/A 3,100MB
Random Read (Max, IOPS), 4 KB QD32 N/A 550,000
Random Write (Max, IOPS), 4 KB QD32 N/A 520,000
Total Terabytes Written (TBW) N/A 5100TB
DWPD N/A 0.7DWPD

Overall, it should come as no surprise that the WD Red SN700 SSD is the notable leader here in practically all official benchmarks over the slightly older Seagate Ironwolf 510 SSD, thanks to that improved architecture. Most notably in write performance and IOPS in general, it had a clear lead even in the lowest available capacities. Of course, these are officially provided performance figures and represent maximums based on the highest available hardware at the time of release. Let’s take a look at how these two SSDs compare in our own tests.

How Did the Seagate Ironwolf 510 and WD Red SN700 SSD Compare in OUR Tests?

Moving away from the official performance stats provided by WD and Seagate, I wanted to see how the Seagate Ironwolf 510 and WD Red SN700 compared in my own tests. Testing of these two SSDs will be broken down into 3 main parts, a CrystalDisk Benchmark test, Atto Disk Benchmark Test and an AJA media test. In each test, the SSD was in the 2nd storage slot (i.e not the OS drive). Each test was conducted three times and the system was left for 1 minute between tests to allow the SSD time to stabilize. The specifications of the test machine are:

Test Machine:

  • Windows 10 Pro Desktop System
  • Intel i5 11400 Rocket Lake – 6-Core 2.6/4.4Ghz
  • 16GB DDR4 2666MHz Memory
  • Intel B560M mATX Motherboard
  • OS Storage, Seagate Firecuda 120 SSD
  • Test SSD connected to Secondary PCIe Gen 4×4 M.2 Slot

CrystalDisk 1GB Test File – Read, Write, 70/30% Mixed and IOPS Performance

CrystalDisk is still highly regarded as one of the most reliable tools for measuring storage media performance. Though it does create somewhat high-end results that may not be truly indicative of your own real-world setup, it can be used to display maximum potential throughput and IOPs at each tier. The first test for the Seagate Ionwolf 510 and WD Red SN700 was on a 1GB test file:

WD Red SN700 SSD

Seagate Ironwolf 510 SSD

Overall Winner: The WD Red SN700 SSD

CrystalDisk 4GB Test File – Read, Write, 70/30% Mixed and IOPS Performance

The next test was to perform the same parameters in CrystalDisk on the WD Red SN700 and Seagate Ironwolf 510, but this time with a 4GB test file (larger files may result in higher sequential performance, but lower comparative IOPS):

WD Red SN700 SSD

Seagate Ironwolf 510 SSD

Overall Winner: The WD Red SN700 SSD

ATTO DiskBenchmark 256MB Test File – Read, Write

Switching things up, I then moved testing the Seagate Ironwolf 510 and WD Red SN700 SSD over to ATTO disk benchmark. A far more detailed tool that spreads performance testing over different file and block sizes. I started with the smallest ‘full range’ test file of 256MB (as smaller would reduce the range of block sizes). Here is how each SSD compared:

WD Red SN700 SSD

Seagate Ironwolf 510 SSD

Overall Winner: The WD Red SN700 SSD

ATTO DiskBenchmark 4GB Test File – Read, Write

Sticking with ATTO DiskBenchmark, I then moved the testing of the WD Red SN700 and Seagate Ironwolf 510 onto a x16 bigger test file of 4GB. This would certainly shift where the peaks in performance would sit and hopefully produce a clearer disparity between these two SSDs:

WD Red SN700 SSD

Seagate Ironwolf 510 SSD

Overall Winner: The WD Red SN700 SSD

AJA 1080i Media Test 1GB Test File – Read, Write

I then switched to AJA, a popular media testing tool for video formats. Most SSDs will suffer over-saturated Memory/DRAM/SDRAM as sustained large file tests go on. The 1GB file test of AJA on the WD Red SN700 and Seagate Ironwolf 510 is still a small enough value not to be a problem though and we chiefly focused on the disk playback/reads graph to see how they compared in peak performance and also throughout the transfer:

WD Red SN700 SSD

Seagate Ironwolf 510 SSD

Overall Winner: The WD Red SN700 SSD

AJA 1080i Media Test 16GB Test File – Read, Write

Then we used a much, MUCH heavier test in AJA of 16GB on the Seagate Ironwolf 510 and WD Red SN700 SSD. Unsurprisingly this can often overflow the SSD cache/memory on board and result in a dip in performance as the SSD bottlenecks internally. So, when conducting this test, we are looking at peak performance AND how long the SSD maintained that performance before a potential dip. Here is how these two SSD compared:

WD Red SN700 SSD

Seagate Ironwolf 510 SSD

Overall Winner: The WD Red SN700 SSD

WD Red SN700 vs Seagate Ironwolf 510 SSD – The Results

It will come as little surprise that in the case of comparing the WD Red SN700 and Seagate Ironwolf 510, the more recently released and more modern architecture WD SSD was the victor in the majority of tests (both official 1st party and my own). Although it has taken WD almost a year and a half to release a competitor NAS NVMe SSD to Seagate’s entry, it is unquestionable the better performing drive as it takes advantage of numerous newer innovations in SSD architecture that have been developed and released in that time. The Durability across the entire range of the Ironwolf 510 series and three years of inclusive forensic level data recovery do make the Seagate Ironwolf an attractive choice in 2021, but in NAS use, general use and performance overall, the WD Red SN700 wins the day.

The WD Red SN700 NVMe SSD Wins on:

  • Overall Read Performance
  • Overall Write Performance
  • 4K IOPs
  • Price Point per GB/TB
  • Capacity (4TB Max)

The Seagate Ironwolf 510 NVMe SSD Wins on:

  • Data Recovery Services (Rescue)
  • On-Board Over Provisioning
  • TBW and DWPD Overall

 

 


Articles Get Updated Regularly - Get an alert every time something gets added to this page!


This description contains links to Amazon. These links will take you to some of the products mentioned in today's content. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Visit the NASCompares Deal Finder to find the best place to buy this device in your region, based on Service, Support and Reputation - Just Search for your NAS Drive in the Box Below

 

SEARCH IN THE BOX BELOW FOR NAS DEALS

Need Advice on Data Storage from an Expert?

We want to keep the free advice on NASCompares FREE for as long as we can. Since this service started back in Jan '18, We have helped hundreds of users every month solve their storage woes, but we can only continue to do this with your support. So please do choose to buy at Amazon US and Amazon UK on the articles when buying to provide advert revenue support or to donate/support the site below. Finally, for free advice about your setup, just leave a message in the comments below here at NASCompares.com and we will get back to you. Need Help? Where possible (and where appropriate) please provide as much information about your requirements, as then I can arrange the best answer and solution to your needs. Do not worry about your e-mail address being required, it will NOT be used in a mailing list and will NOT be used in any way other than to respond to your enquiry. [contact-form-7] Terms and Conditions Alternatively, why not ask me on the ASK NASCompares forum, by clicking the button below. This is a community hub that serves as a place that I can answer your question, chew the fat, share new release information and even get corrections posted. I will always get around to answering ALL queries, but as a one-man operation, I cannot promise speed! So by sharing your query in the ASK NASCompares section below, you can get a better range of solutions and suggestions, alongside my own.  

 

#RunWithIronWolf and #WDRedNAS . This unit was supplied by @seagate and @WesternDigitalCorporation .The review provided was free of bias and my own independent opinions

❌