Slashdot Log In
Western Digital's "Green" Hard Drives
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wednesday March 26, @08:50AM
from the not-as-vain-as-driving-a-prius dept.
from the not-as-vain-as-driving-a-prius dept.
MojoKid writes "Eco-friendly or 'green' products are becoming much more fashionable these
days, especially in things like high-end electronics, where the impact on the
environment and the disposal of these products is being regulated now by such
things as the RoHS compliance standard. In addition, power consumption is also
being looked at more closely for all the obvious reasons. Hard Drive
manufacturer Western Digital recently took the initiative by being the first
drive manufacture to produce and market
a lower power version of their Caviar line of hard drives. The
numbers here show that a green hard drive will probably only save an average
end user about 10 watts in total system power consumption. However, from a
data center perspective, where demand for storage is growing by the petabyte at
an alarming rate, 10 watts per drive can certainly add up quickly."
Related Stories
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading ... Please wait.

They're also very quiet (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.silentpcreview.com/article804-page2.html [silentpcreview.com]
Idle and seek noise are extremely low, and vibrations almost negligible (this is also a very important thing when you have two same drives, for example in a redundant RAID array *cough*).
The power savings aren't 10W, though.
Re:They're also very quiet (Score:5, Interesting)
It was so quiet we took it to an empty office because we couldn't believe what we were hearing, and that's when we found the ticking of my watch is far louder than the noise this computer makes when booting. Awesome drives, and an awesome case. Would highly recommend them both.
Re:They're also very quiet (Score:4, Informative)
I put one of the WD GP drives in my TiVo HD. In the default settings, it was still to loud for my entertainment center. I took it out so I could run the Feature Tool from Hitachi to change the acoustic levels. After that it seemed my quieter and haven't seen any effect on performance in the TiVo.
Ads up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
During general use (web browsing, chatting, online java games like settlers of catan, etc) it uses around 40-45Watts.
This is switching from a PC that used between 110-120watts for the same thing.
You can save a lot if you
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I was tearing up my 350 GB drive a year ago just with digital pictures. My wife and I have a 6 megapixel camera and we regularly take pictures of th
Re:Ads up (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, the choice of GPU certainly is very significant. A while back I built up a PVR using GMA950 to keep initial and long term costs down. It'd be awful for demanding games, but works great for HD video. Total system power consumption (less display) 82 Watts (measured during video compression). That's with a slightly overclocked Core 2 Duo too. I'm sure an Apple-TV uses far less than 82 Watts, but for scaling 1080i to 720p I needed more CPU.
The raw power rating for the power supply does not tell you anything about how much power you'll consume. That is simply a maximum output rating. It's a bit like saying a 120 Volt outlet in your house is rated to deliver 2400 Watts when fed from a 20 Amp circuit with nothing else running. The actual consumption depends on the load current you draw.
Power supplies do have conversion losses which are reflected by an efficiency rating. The rated numbers still don't tell you exactly what to expect since efficiency varies depending on how much of a load you have, and which outputs are doing the work.
The more you're consuming, the more important the efficiency rating is. I found some really cheap 600 Watt power supplies on sale, shipping included, for $15. No efficiency rating was given, and I'd suspect something so cheap of having problems when actually being asked to deliver close to 600 Watts, but they've worked flawlessly at low power levels.
Actual consumption of components and whole systems is usually quite different from sticker/spec-sheet figures. Some of those reflect maximum capabilities, some reflect things like startup surge currents, all generally change with options and actual use. Even something like running displays at the lowest acceptable brightness makes a significant difference. It's very helpful to use a meter such as the Kill-A-Watt [amazon.com] (set to Watts, not Volt*Amperes) to get a feel for these things.
Since power is fairly expensive where I am, I figure a cost of about $1 per month for every 10 Watts used continuously. Between torrents and recording at all hours, continuous applies for my PVR. Saving 10 Watts doesn't sound like much, but over 5 years that's about $60. If one likes to archive shows, it is quite likely that more than one drive will be used eventually multiplying the costs and savings. Of course if one keeps some archives on externals and powers them down, that would help even more. If OSes are not supporting drive sleep on a drive-by-drive basis, some changes there could save quite a bit too.
Using energy saving drives, using fewer big drives instead of a larger number of older small ones, using an energy efficient CPU, and avoiding a power hungry GPU if it isn't needed all add up to much more substantial energy savings. And remember, it's not just about the cost of energy, there's the environmental impact as well.
I haven't actually made measurements to see how much the power consumption of GPUs varies with what they're doing. I would hope that designs now, or in the near future, will allow a major fallback in consumption when user needs are not very demanding.
When people brag about benchmarks, I'd like to see one more added - one generated by dividing the traditional benchmark by the power consumption.
Just bought one (Score:4, Informative)
Anyway, the article the summary seems to be slashdotted, so here's the review at TechReport [techreport.com] I read before I ordered it, with lots of graphs and comparisons.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's coming to the point
just keep on dumping it in China (Score:4, Interesting)
Now if U.S could just stop pretending and sign the Basel Convention [wikipedia.org] deal which restricts the export of e-waste so the children of Guiyu [wikipedia.org] wouldn't have to waste away their lives [nwsource.com] in toxic pits melting our "green" and ecologically "safe" drives.
Recycling is great, recycling it near the consumpition is also great. Dumping it to China is not great, out of sight out of mind mentality comes and bites you in the ass sooner or later.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now open your eyes and start acting responsibly, recycle yo
saving 10 watts! (Score:5, Insightful)
Also with less power the drives should run cooler, this would really increase drive reliability.
I found most CoLo servers don't properly cool their drives especially 1U servers, where it seems I loose a few every year, but at home I can run those same drives for 5 years or more. Even the desktop servers I run in a dusty shed that freeze in the winter and bakes in the summer the drives are more reliable then the ones running in a CoLo with constant 50 degree super clean air, just because drives in 1U's run hotter constantly and under a heaver load.
RoHS is another story, it's been a somewhat difficult transition, unexpectedly is make passing FCC compliance more difficult because for the exact same board layout it had higher RF emissions. Don't know why, wonder if others have also seen that.
I don't see how RoHS is going to be any more "green", the largest change is moving away from tin/lead to Lead-free solders that contain some mix of tin, copper, silver, bismuth, indium, zinc, and antimony.
It's more expensive, and brittle which could decrease reliablity.
If the circuit boards are actually getting recycled instead of landfilled, it wouldn't make much difference anyhow.
Wrong Standard? (Score:3, Insightful)
RoHS says which materials can be used in construction, WEEE covers disposal. (In the EU at least)
Review at the register: Not so good. (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/03/26/review_four_terabyte_hard_drives/ [reghardware.co.uk]
Product
Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000
Verdict
The Hitachi set a decent benchmark for performance as a standalone drive.
Rating
70%
Suggested Price
£159
Product
Samsung SpinPoint F1 HD103UJ
Verdict
It's a straight fight between the Seagate and Samsung, and on balance we favour the Sammy despite its higher price.
Rating
85%
Suggested Price
£194
Product
Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 ST31000340NS
Verdict
The Seagate delivers sterling performance with the minimum of fuss, yet it is the cheapest of the drives on test.
Rating
80%
Suggested Price
£149
Product
Western Digital WD1000FYPS RE2-GP
Verdict
We're all in favour of reducing our dependence on electricity but the RE2-GP lagged behind in every one of our tests.
Rating
60%
Suggested Price
£159
Re:watts != Green (Score:4, Funny)
Come to think of it, this will probably be more practical for mac users, and not because they use less energy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're being too cyn
Re: (Score:3)
Re:watts != Green (Score:5, Insightful)
...mean Much Lower Noise! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:86400 Watts*Hours (Score:4, Insightful)
The earth is worth it! (Score:5, Interesting)
So yeah it's unrealistic to believe that every person is going to swap out their drives to use these, but when thinking about environmental issues it's important to put yourself in that frame of mind. I try do what I wish everyone would do. If everyone thought that way we'd get there eventually.
That being said I'm not going to swap out all my drives for these babies, but next time I need to buy or replace a drive, yeah for sure I'll cough up a little extra cash. As long as it's not just a marketing gimmick, and the price increase isn't too much, I'd be willing to take a slight loss on the principal alone. It's not just our pocket books that needs protecting.
But, as someone pointed out already, these drives are only a few bucks more than their non-green counterparts, so not only will they eventually save some cash, but they have the ability to make a difference too.
As a final thought, another thing that's important is make a point with manufacturers (through your wallet) that environmental issues matter. The more we think about it, and the more we get in the habit of making the small choices that all add up to a larger statement, the better off we all are.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But whatever we improve, IT still represents an ecological disaster.
Take a look at every tech stuff around you. Where will they be in 5 years? Surely not around anymore!
Obviously, those "green drives" are better than nothing, but
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Even older technologies are eating less power... (Score:3, Informative)
Such a bulb would have the same efficiency as a compact flourescent light, but with the "instant on" advantages of incandescents