Western Digital using same model number for different drives

[kalmquist]

If we look on page 2 of this data sheet, dated January 2012, we find specifications for the WD30EZRX (also here). But we find a different set of specifications for the WD30EZRX on this February 2014 data sheet (related data sheet here).

The weight of the drive is significantly different (1.61 pounds on the first data sheet vs. 1.40 pounds on the second data sheet), so it appears that the two drives are different mechanically. The power draw is also significantly different (0.8 watts standby on the first data sheet vs. 0.4 watts on the second data sheet), which suggests different electronics. In short, it appears that Western Digital designed a completely new drive and assigned it the same model number as an older drive.

I see that 31% of Newegg reviews older than 6 months give the WE30EZRX a one star rating, whereas 55% of the reviews in the last 6 months give it a one star rating. The difference could be just random chance, but it could also be that the new design is less reliable than the old one. The take-away is that if you have a Western Digital drive that you like, don't just blindly order another drive with the same model number, because you might get a completely different model.

 

[dark zero]

Time to move to Hitachi then...

 

[Acidicheartburn]

Time to move to Hitachi then...

Now if only Western Digital hadn't bought Hitachi (now rebranded as HGST).

 

[notposting]

Haven't paid close attention lately, but they've done this sort of thing for years. What you are describing sounds like the usual platter consolidation. As they get the higher density platters into production this seems to happen (at the higher capacities). You would expect to get lower power (less weight, fewer drive heads), possibly slightly faster access with higher density platters in use.

Dunno about the reliability. Haven't bought any new drives lately.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Wow that's retarded. Will make shopping for drives much harder if wanting to expand a raid array. I like using all the same drives if I can.

 

[AlienTech]

I think WDC started this and seagate followed. The specs are so far off that what kingston did with replacing synchronous nand with async ones makes it look like they were identical. What I hate about this is, the marketing the companies do and the propaganda against anyone who complains and asks questions. And since their marketing budgets are so high these days that they sell using tricks instead of benefits. I have had many people attack me for pointing out these tricks. Usually the tactic is I dont know what I am doing and it is my fault. The first couple of times I took that as the usual rebuke from people who know less but on the Internet they actually created the thing. But after 5 or so times I take that as people benefiting from the companies directly. When someone from SMC's server crew gets attacked for trying to figure out the same thing I noticed, I knew it was not just me. The performance difference is so drastic and compatibility problems so vast that they are a major point of failure just waiting to happen. SMC noticed the performance dropping to a third by replacing just 1 drive out of the server chassis.

The main problem is, there is no easy way to identify the differences. With seagates at least you need to check the firmware which no seller is willing to do. Nothing else shows the differences. They have even fudged the old ways of using serial numbers to figure out the drive. Now you can have the same model and similar serial number but different firmwares that behave very differently.

Whats worse is, I have no idea why they do it. Not like it will save them any money. it will only annoy people who end up having to look after such equipment.

 

[Auric]

It's the difference between a model number and a part number -which is what to look for if the same thing is needed. Otherwise, enjoy the improvements.

 

[zir_blazer]

Seagate did something identical when you had two different drivers with the same part number, the 2 TB ST2000DM001.

 

[AlienTech]

Seagate did something identical when you had two different drivers with the same part number, the 2 TB ST2000DM001.

There are more than 2 versions. They should have at least changed the DL001 to DL002 or DL003 as they did with the green drives, I have 4 different ones of those with varying specs. The 3rd version of the DL001 does not have NCQ. Then there are version with advanced sectors.. ie 4K sectors instead of 512 byte, all use same identical model and serial numbers.

 

[AlienTech]

It's the difference between a model number and a part number -which is what to look for if the same thing is needed. Otherwise, enjoy the improvements.

I suppose losing advanced functions and getting half the performance is an "improvement". This does not include some other improvements which make is likely to lose data. I hope you realise the so called improvement that the likes of seagate does it lower costs by using cheaper parts once they get the drives stable in the market. So that lower prices you see in the future actually means you get less.

 

[BFG10K]

If we look on page 2 of this data sheet, dated January 2012, we find specifications for the WD30EZRX (also here). But we find a different set of specifications for the WD30EZRX on this February 2014 data sheet (related data sheet here).

WD30EZRX isn't the full model number - it's only part of it. You can't infer the actual drive solely from that.

You need the second part, like WD10EZRX-00A8LB0 for my drive. It's the second part that determines the actual drive you're getting.

 

[RecoveryForce]

WD30EZRX isn't the full model number - it's only part of it. You can't infer the actual drive solely from that.

You need the second part, like WD10EZRX-00A8LB0 for my drive. It's the second part that determines the actual drive you're getting.

This is what I was going to say. The numbers after the dash actually define the precise family of drive within a series. To be more precise, the middle characters are the important part, not the first or last two.

WD10EZRX-00A8LB0. Parts may within the series may be compatible, but are unlikely to be close if you just match the family.

But, my question to you, the OP, why do you need the exact same model of drive?

 

[RecoveryForce]

Seagate did something identical when you had two different drivers with the same part number, the 2 TB ST2000DM001.

With Seagates, you are correct in saying that matching can be tough, as per a thread on my forum here - http://www.recoveryforce.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=137

With Seagates, some have locked down terminal access, preventing data recovery labs like mine from accessing the service areas to fix minor firmware issues that are preventing LBA access to user data. So, if you are looking to match a Seagate, you pretty much need to match the following:

Serial Number: First 3 digits
Model Number: Exact
Part Number: Exact
Site Code: Exact
Date Code: As close as possible

Even then, there are no guarantees.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Yes, WD has been doing that for a while.

I remember hunting for WD10EACS-00D6B0 revision of the drive because it was the newer revision with three 333GB platters as opposed to an older 00ZJB0 revision that featured four 250GB platters. If you google you will find more examples like that.

As BFG10K has said, the only way to know what drive you're getting is by looking at revision that comes after model number.

 

[Mighty_Miro_WD]

Hi there.

Although the model number is the same (in this case WD30EZRX) the thing that makes the drives different is the rest of the model number. Like @RecoveryForce said:

The numbers after the dash actually define the precise family of drive within a series.

In other words, the drives model doesn’t mean that the HDD will be perfectly identical - the model is for a build of drive but the exact component and firmware can vary since the internal drives do have different builds but keep the same model number. As technology gets better a new firmware features are applied to existing drives in order to make them better.

Hope this helps.

Cheers!