Western Digital Launches WD Red SA500 Caching SSDs for NAS
by Anton Shilov on October 31, 2019 3:00 PM EST- Posted in
- SSDs
- Storage
- Western Digital
- WD Red
Western Digital has introduced its new WD Red SA500 family of specialized SSDs, which are designed for caching data in NAS devices. The drives are available in four different capacities from 500 GB to 4 TB to satisfy demands of different customers. To maximize their compatibility, the SSDs feature a SATA 6 Gbps interface and come in M.2-2280 or 2.5-inch/7-mm form-factors.
Now that many desktop PCs have either been replaced by laptops or are so small that they cannot house a decent number of capacious hard drives, NAS use is gaining traction among those individuals and small businesses who need to store fairly large amounts of data. To provide such customers high performance (which is comparable to that of internal storage), many NAS these days feature a 10GbE network adapter as well as a special bay (or bays) for a caching SSD. However, the vast majority of client SSDs on the market were not designed for pure caching workloads, which are more write-heavy than typical consumer workloads. Seagate with its IronWolf 110 was the first company to launch an SSD architected for NAS caching early this year and now Western Digital follows the suit with its WD Red SA500 family, which is broader than that offered by its rival.
While it's not being disclosed by the company, Western Digital’s WD Red SA500 SSDs are based on Marvell's proven 88SS1074 controller, and paired with the company’s 3D TLC NAND memory. When it comes to capacities, the new WD Red SA500 drives are available in two form-factors: M.2-2280 models offer 500 GB, 1 TB, and 2 TB capacities, whereas 2.5-inch/7-mm SKUs can store 500 GB, 1 TB, 2 TB and 4 TB of data.
Performance-wise, the WD Red SA500 offers up to 560 MB/s sequential read speeds, up to 530 MB/s sequential write speeds, and up to 95K/85K random read/write IOPS, which is in line with advanced client SATA SSDs. But the key difference between typical client drives equipped with the same controller and the WD Red SA500 is a special firmware optimized for more evenly mixed workloads and engineered to ensure longevity. By contrast, client SSDs are tailored mostly for fast reads.
As far as endurance is concerned, the WD Red SA500 SSDs are rated for 0.32 – 0.38 DWPD over a five-year warranty period, which is in line with that of modern desktop drives. This is admittedly not especially high for a drive that can fill itself in under an hour, but presumably Western Digital confident that the caching algorithms in modern NASes are not so aggressive that the drives will be extensively rewritten. Moreover, at the end of the day we are talking about consumer as well as SMB-class NASes, where the expected workloads are lower than with enterprise systems.
| The WD Red SA500 Caching SSDs for NAS | |||||
| Capacity | 500 GB | 1 TB | 2 TB | 4 TB | |
| Model Number | ? | ? | ? | ? | |
| Controller | Marvell 88SS1074 | ||||
| NAND Flash | 3D TLC NAND | ||||
| Form-Factor, Interface | M.2 | M.2-2280, SATA 6 Gbps | - | ||
| DFF | 2.5-inch/7-mm, SATA 6 Gbps | ||||
| Sequential Read | 560 MB/s | ||||
| Sequential Write | 530 MB/s | ||||
| Random Read IOPS | 95K | ||||
| Random Write IOPS | 85K | 82K | |||
| Pseudo-SLC Caching | ? | ||||
| DRAM Buffer | Yes, capacity unknown | ||||
| TCG Opal Encryption | ? | ||||
| Power Consumption | Avg Active | 52 mW | 60 mW | 60 mW | |
| Max. Read | 2050 mW | 2550 mW | 3000 mW | ||
| Max. Write | 3350 mW | 3750 mW | 3800 mW | ||
| Slumber | 56 mW | 56 mW | |||
| DEVSLP | 5-7 mW | 5-12 mW | |||
| Warranty | 5 years | ||||
| MTBF | 2 million hours | ||||
| TBW | 350 | 600 | 1300 | 2500 | |
| DWPD | 0.38 | 0.32 | 0.35 | 0.34 | |
| UBER | 1E10^17 | ||||
| Additional Information | Link | ||||
| MSRP | M.2 | $72 | ? | $297 | - |
| DFF | $75 | ? | ? | $600 | |
Western Digital’s WD Red SA500 SSDs are currently available directly from the company, with broader availability expected in November. The cheapest 500 GB model costs $72 – $75 depending on the form-factor, the top-of-the-range M.2 2 TB SKU is priced at $297, whereas the highest-capacity 4 TB 2.5-inch model carries a $600 price tag.
Related Reading:
- Seagate Introduces IronWolf SSD for NAS
- QNAP Launches Mustang-200 Compute Accelerator for Network Attached Storage
- WD Adds Helium-Filled 10 TB NAS HDDs to WD Red, WD Red Pro Lineups
- Western Digital Introduces Its First Helium-Filled HDDs for Consumer Applications
Source: Western Digital
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
27 Comments
View All Comments
khanikun - Friday, November 1, 2019 - link
There's the MikroTik SFP+ switch. 4x10Gb and 1xGb (management port). It's $124 on Amazon right now. I'm looking at that, three 10Gtek 1m direct attach cables, and 3 Intel X520-DA1-10 (Amazon renewed) for $317 total.Looks like a little 5"x5" switch. Like one of those small Netgear 5 port Gbps switches. Reply
npz - Friday, November 1, 2019 - link
Direct attach SFP cables are very very limited use. I need full copper rj45 since I already have 10base T cards and my home is cabled with Cat 6 and getting an SFP switch would mean expensive 10base T SFP to copper transceivers in each port, https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01KFBFL16/ = ($65 each x 4) + $130 current Microtik switch price = $390 for the 4 portswhich amounts to worse value per port
So for 10base-T rj45 switches, prices are coming down, albeit slowly, due to having more competition
Trendnet TEG-7080ES 8 port = $540
Buffalo BS-MP2008 8 port = $550
Buffalo BS-MP2012 12 port = $775
better than Netgear prices Reply
Lakados - Thursday, November 7, 2019 - link
Look at UBNT's new switches, they also have 10G SFP+ RJ45 adapters for like $65. ReplyAnarchoPrimitiv - Saturday, November 2, 2019 - link
SFP is a terrible way to go for a home 10Gig network... You can't run DAC through your walls and even if you did SMF or MMF, transceivers are expensive. 10GBase-T is the way to go since CAT6a/CAT7 is cheap (I got 1000ft spool for under $200), and that's what I have. The Asus XG-U2008 10GBase-T switch is $200 or under and The Aquantia 10GBase-T NICs are $100 or under. Heck, even the Intel X710-T4 (4x 10gbase-t ports) that I have in my NAS/Server for an aggregated 40Gbit backbone is getting close or below $500 now and my Netgear XS728T switch is seen for under $1000. But anyone can make a simple 10GBase-T home network for $300 or under and one you have that kind of speed, everyone agrees that it's worth it Replysvan1971 - Thursday, October 31, 2019 - link
$85 ? Link please. Replyname99 - Thursday, October 31, 2019 - link
At least for some of us, the issue is less cost than applicability.There is no home-appropriate equipment -- just a few RJ-45 ports rather than 8+, small rather than rack-sized, no loud jet turbine cooling, no complicated config, no SFP, ... Reply
rrinker - Friday, November 1, 2019 - link
I do plan to do something greater than GbE when I build a new storage server, but in reality, I only need the faster speed in two places - the server itself, to then support multiple GbE streams off of it, and my primary desktop which is where I tend to do most of my downloading - to then copy up to the server (yes, I could just download right to the server...). Everything else that happens on the network - GbE is not a bottleneck, by any stretch. Nice thing is, the server and my primary desktop and the switch all sit right next to another, so needing some sort of fiber cable or other than a regular Ethernet cable is no big deal, they can all be short. Replywr3zzz - Thursday, October 31, 2019 - link
SDD in NAS are for caching. The NAS won't send any large files there, just the tiny ones. Tiny files have tiny read/write speed vs. sequential. Replyimaheadcase - Friday, November 1, 2019 - link
The reason nothing takes off in the consumer market is simply not the hardware, its the wiring. Unless you are the few people who can buy a brand new home, most homes don't have the required wiring, or enough wiring, or not wired correctly to even use faster speeds.This isn't some future in a sci-fi movie, the reality is most people rent, or if own a home its old.
So the incentive to crank out faster network equipment at a lower price just is not worth it.
To illustrate my point, a new 60 home subdivision nearby has Cat 5e, 1 cable to main bedroom, 1 cable upstairs den, 1 cable to kitchen because apparently developers think everyone still had phones on wall in kitchen still. Reply
npz - Friday, November 1, 2019 - link
Well most people in older homes, which are still many homes, didn't even have ethernet cabling conduits and 1G still took off long ago. One can still find use for 1G or 10G inter-office in the home or just running your own cabling along the walls rather than inside it. How do you think people are using NAS machines in homes without ethernet cabling?And even in your example of Cat 5e, you can still use 10G over it, just at much shorter distance: 45m or ~148 ft., which is still quite a good distance, perfect for inter-room or adjacent rooms Reply