Results of iSCSI 4k average latency were more or less that same, with the IronWolf just behind its Pro brethren at 392.454ms while reads hit an average of 428.802ms. CIFS connectivity showed similar write performance (433.843ms), though read activity was more than double the latency (820.944ms).

The IronWolf’s write performance in AS SSD was 40MBps slower than the BarraCuda 10TB, but we’re still trying to understand the BarraCuda 12TB’s sudden drop in write speed. Take these numbers with a grain of salt.When moving on to max latency, the IronWolf was the clear winner in reads, recording just 1,711.6ms. Writes performance, however, were middle of the run with a maximum latency at 22,919.0ms. CIFS showed 2,960.8ms read and 24,777ms write. IronWolf Health Management in compatible NAS systems continuously helps to safeguard the health of your data As far as CrystalDiskMark 5 is concerned, the IronWolf and BarraCuda Pro might as well be the same drive.

RAID performance optimized - maximizes responsiveness and uptime with NAS-aware Error Recovery ControlWe didn’t test the lower-capacity 1TB through 10TB IronWolf drives, but Seagate’s performance claims decrease progressively with each drop in capacity. On the other hand, the company lists only 210MBps for the 12TB model we tested, not the 250MBps we saw. You might see better-than-claimed performance with the other capacities as well, depending on your computer. Seagate I also read the article twice, there are a bunch of affirmations that I completely disagree with, it's not even a different point of view, it's just a point of view based of presenting a situation and a reality in a given time (example Seagate increased product quality, but prices also shot up). It's always the same thing, prices go up to get the executives bigger bonuses, nothing else. That being said, there are fortunately other competitors in the market. Note that we did not spot any statistically relevant difference in the seek times between the BarraCuda Pro and the IronWolf. Capacity caveats