Considering these are enterprise drives I'm thinking they could run a fair bit louder but I'm hoping for some actual data. The 1TB to 4TB IronWolf models use 5,900-RPM platter rotation, but the 6TB and larger capacities shifted to 7,200 RPMs just like all capacities of the IronWolf Pros series. The IronWolf base model competes head to head with Western Digital's Red (base series) that still uses the 5,900-RPM spindle speed. The IronWolf Pro is the direct competitor to the Red Pro series with 7,200-RPM speed. The advantage becomes very clear in the user experience and performance. I haven't seen that either. Other than one drive I had replaced under warranty, the rest of the drives in my array have Load_Cycle_Count values around 1300 with over 21000 power-on hours. Power supplies: https://www.truenas.com/community/resources/proper-power-supply-sizing-guidance.39/

BigPool: 8 * Seagate Exos 12TB HDD in 4 * mirrored pairs + 2 18TB Toshiba MG08 + Optane 900P as SLOG + Mirrored Special (800GB Intel DC S3610) The three 12Gb/s SAS models are the ST16000NM002G (standard), ST16000NM004G (SED) and the ST16000NM009G (SED-FIPS (Federal Information Processing Standard) ). Secondly, the ST16000NM000J has a slightly higher data transfer rate ( 258MB/s) compared to the ST16000NM001G ( 249 MB /s) due to the higher density. The webserver test shows similar performance between the three sets of drives tested today. The Exos X shows a little more inconsistency compared to the two IronWolf series in preconditioning with a heavy workload. This is likely due to the different cache algorithm. Final Thoughts Virtualization: https://www.truenas.com/community/t...ide-to-not-completely-losing-your-data.12714/FWIW, I also have 8 Exos 16TB drives in my NAS, and it's been in service (as my home NAS) since early 2020, with no drive failures (they're currently hanging off an LSI 9211-8i SAS HBA flashed with P20 IT firmware).

The Exos X doubles the IOPS in every OIO compared to the two IronWolf series. This doesn't come as a surprise since this is the series' home turf. The system connects to our Supermicro SSE-X3348TR switch with both 10GbE and 40GbE connectivity. The workload comes from a modified Quanta (QCT) MESOS CB220 server. CPU: Intel Xeon E-2288G (Coffee Lake-R) 3.7 GHz (w/iGPU transcoding after TrueNAS 12.0-RELEASE upgrade) The mixed workload and 70% read charts show us more of the performance inconsistency at very high queue depths. These are worse case numbers for HDDs since the heavy workloads compounds latency between each IO.There are many data points to go over in the specifications that explain why Seagate offers three NAS-optimized models. We will be starting with the IronWolf and IronWolf Pro from the Guardian Series of consumer and prosumer products.

The two IronWolf Series drives outperform the Exos X slightly in the sequential read test, but there are plenty of outliers with all three series. So I'm looking at getting a few of these for my my NAS but I'm having trouble finding any data on noise levels. I'm currently running mostly 8TB WD Reds which according to their data sheet run 27 dBA idle and 29 dBA seek (average). Any new experiences with the exos drives (16/ 18 tb)? I'm considering buying them as well, so very interested!As with most of the Exos product range, the X16 is available with either 6Gb/s SATA or 12Gb/s SAS interfaces. There are two SATA models, the standard model (the drive we are reviewing here) which is the ST16000NM001G – and then there is a SED (Self-Encrypting Drive) version, the ST16000NM003G.