---
product_id: 7822332
title: "HGST Deskstar 7200rpm 128MB Cache SATA III 3.5\" Internal NAS Drive Kit"
brand: "western digital"
price: "$20.15"
currency: USD
in_stock: false
reviews_count: 9
url: https://www.desertcart.us/products/7822332-hgst-deskstar-7200rpm-128mb-cache-sata-iii-3-5-internal
store_origin: US
region: United States of America
---

# 7200 RPM Speed 6TB Storage 128MB Cache HGST Deskstar 7200rpm 128MB Cache SATA III 3.5" Internal NAS Drive Kit

**Brand:** western digital
**Price:** $20.15
**Availability:** ❌ Out of Stock

## Summary

> 🚀 Elevate Your Storage Game!

## Quick Answers

- **What is this?** HGST Deskstar 7200rpm 128MB Cache SATA III 3.5" Internal NAS Drive Kit by western digital
- **How much does it cost?** $20.15 with free shipping
- **Is it available?** Currently out of stock
- **Where can I buy it?** [www.desertcart.us](https://www.desertcart.us/products/7822332-hgst-deskstar-7200rpm-128mb-cache-sata-iii-3-5-internal)

## Best For

- western digital enthusiasts

## Why This Product

- Trusted western digital brand quality
- Free international shipping included
- Worldwide delivery with tracking
- 15-day hassle-free returns

## Key Features

- • **Optimized for NAS:** Designed specifically for Network Attached Storage systems.
- • **Reliable Performance:** 128MB cache ensures smooth data transfers.
- • **Lightweight & Compact:** Weighs only 1.58 pounds for easy installation.
- • **Massive Storage Capacity:** Store up to 6TB of your most important files.
- • **Unleash Your Data Potential:** Experience lightning-fast access with 7200 RPM speed.

## Overview

The HGST Deskstar NAS 3.5-Inch 6TB Internal Hard Drive is engineered for high-performance storage solutions, featuring a 7200 RPM rotational speed and a robust 128MB cache, making it ideal for NAS environments. With a generous 6TB capacity, it provides ample space for all your data needs while maintaining a lightweight design for effortless integration.

## Description

The Desk star NAS hard drive is a 7200 RPM 3.5-inch hard drive that provides an exceptional blend of reliability and performance, making it an ideal solution for consumer and commercial desktop NAS systems. This NAS-ready hard drive from HGST delivers media transfer rates that are as much as 20% faster than 5400 RPM drives and seek times less than 12ms. Furthermore, Desk star NAS hard drives incorporate a rotational vibration sensor and achieve reliability of 1M hours MTBF. All HGST hard drives are designed to the highest quality standards with field-proven components. They are backed by HGST worldwide technical support and integration services, enabling customers around the globe to bring their products to market quickly.

Review: Solid performers, drive-seeks are noisy - UDPATE 7/13/2016: Drives have been solid and still running 24/7 since purchased well over 1 year ago. S.M.A.R.T. values for all 8 disks are great. No complaints. I bought 9 of these drives; a few from desertcart and rest from other places to mix up the lots and dates of manufacture. 8 of the drives are in a RAID10 (3 sets of 2 disk span) configuration controlled by a dedicated LSI MegaRAID SAS 9361-8i PCI-Express 3.0 x8 12Gb/s (future proofing). The stripe defined is 256kb since will be storing mainly large files. However, benchmarking was done using single disk, 6-disk (3 sets of 2 disk span) and 8-disk (4 sets of 2 disk span) array configuration. Due to some unmentioned system limitations, the drives are set up in the same box as my ESXi host, a disk container created and attached to a guest machine that serves as my dedicated NAS; said guest machine runs CentOS 7.1 for an operating system. The filesystem chosen is XFS, as it scales well with large storage arrays. First, the partition will consist of the entire array size available. It was configured using the following set of commands (Note about "print" read-out below. I added pipe "|" separators as desertcart stripped out my formatting): # parted -a optimal /dev/sdx (parted) mklabel gpt (parted) unit s (parted) mkpart primary xfs 2048s 11721043967s (parted) print Number | Start | End | Size | File system | Name | Flags 1 | 2048s | 11721043967s | 11721041920s | xfs | primary | Verify alignment: (parted) align-check optimal 1 1 aligned Save/write partition: (parted) quit NOTE: For optimal/best performance, specify the 'optimal' command so the partition alignment boundary is in multiples of 1MiB (1024x1024); which then the starting sector (2048), the ending sector, minus 1 (11721043968 - 1) and the RAID stripe size (256) are all evenly divisible. The filesystem was created specifying the block-size, stride and stripe-width options for optimal performance with the array and the partition created. The command is as follows: # mkfs.xfs -b 4096 -E stride=64,stripe-width=256 /dev/sdx1 NOTE: Your numbers will be different. I highly recommand using a stride and stripe-width calculator available on The Web. You can verify the filesystem attributes once it is created using either of the commands below: # tune2fs -l /dev/sdx1 # dumpe2fs /dev/sdx1 | less -------------------------------------- SETUP: Keep in mind that many factors will effect performance - hardware capabilities/limitations, hardware controller configuration, RAID array stripe size, NIC card performance, caching, kernel I/O scheduler (Linux), the file-system format and options you choose (Linux - see below at 'stride' and 'stripe-width'), disk mounting options defaults/user-specified (Linux), router/switch, etc. I do not run actual server hardware, but a re-purposed micro-ATX 'desktop' converted to an ESXi host with various guest machines that draws an average ~144 watts. Here is the complete set-up: Fractal Design Node 804 Case 3 x Included fans that came with the Fractal Design Node 804 case 3 x Noctua SSO2 Bearing, Retail Cooling NF-F12 iPPC 2000 PWM Intel i7-4790S Haswell Quad-Core 3.2GHz LGA 1150 Z87 65W ASUS MAXIMUS VI GENE LGA 1150 G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 32GB (4x8GB) DDR3 2133 Samsung 850 Pro 512GB SSD Corsair RM750i 750 watt PSU (Had on-hand) CyberPower CP1500PFCLCD PFC UPS (supports my Corsair's "Active PFC") LSI 9300 MegaRAID SAS 9361-8i PCI-Express 3.0 x8 12Gb/s 2 x LSI LSI00410 0.6mm Internal Cable SFF8643 to x4 SATA HDD 8 x HGST Deskstar NAS 6TB 7200 RPM SATA 6.0Gb/s 128MB Cache For LAN benchmarks, the host machine is wired using CAT6 to an enterprise-class Ubiquiti EdgeRouter. Benchmarking includes scores from single disk, 6-disk and 8-disk RAID10 array. ------------------------------------------ BENCHMARKS: NOTE: These tests go a little deeper than your typical reviewer to show various scenerios and how these disks perform. If you don't understand q-depths, block-sizes, etc., how and when you'll generally face them - then I suggest you stick to the "HDParm" and "DD" scores below if you are looking for general performance scores. Samba 4 transfer of a 2GB file to another wired computer [Windows 8.1]: Sequential Read: 113 MBps Sequential Write: 113 MBps The theoretical maximum sequential transfer over Gigabit Ethernet is 125MBps (1000/8=125). Pretty darn close. I have tried tweaking SMB socket option values for my Samba configuration, increased the kernel read-ahead cache but it would appear that I have hit my ceiling. ---------- HDParm ---------- I ran HDParm 5 times and took the average: "hdparm -Tt /dev/sdx" (single disk) Cache read average: 16639 MBps Average = 200.444 MBps (6-disk array) Cache average = 16817 MBps Average = 632.578 MBps (8-disk array) Cache read average: 16538.47 MBps Average = 824.900 MBps ------------ DD ------------- I ran "dd" with the following parameters ("/temp/testfile" = RAID array disk partition mounted to /temp; "conv=fsync" to allow for synchronous IO; "rm /temp/testfile" to remove test file after completion): "dd if=/dev/zero of=/temp/testfile bs=1G count=12 conv=fsync; rm /temp/testfile" Single disk performance: 208 MB/s 6-disk RAID10 array sequential performance: 621 MB/s 8-disk RAID10 array sequential performance: 812 MB/s ------------ FIO ----------- Important note: FIO works at a low-level. Be sure that you specify a 'filename' or else tests will be written over your filesystem; most likely causing filesystem corruption. FIO is great for providing storage performance statistics based on more real-world scenerios with the abundance of options available, which I'll run through some below. NOTE: This part of the review assumes that you have the technical knowledge to understand the concepts being described. For the first performance test below it is a pretty straight-forward sequential read test based on a block-size of 4k, 4 worker processes, an io-depth of 4, a transfer of a 2GB file with a runtime of 60 seconds. Here is the command I used: "fio --filename=/path/to/file/on/disk --direct=1 --rw=read --refill_buffers --norandommap --randrepeat=0 --ioengine=libaio --bs=4k --iodepth=4 --numjobs=4 --runtime=60 --group_reporting --name=4k_seq_test --size=2g" (single disk) read iops = 41995 read trans. avg. = 167983 KB/s (167.983 MBps) (6-disk array) read iops = 126,167 read trans. avg. = 504668 KB/s (504.668 MBps) --------- Change to write-mode '--rw=write': "fio --filename=/path/to/file/on/disk --direct=1 --rw=write --refill_buffers --norandommap --randrepeat=0 --ioengine=libaio --bs=4k --iodepth=4 --numjobs=4 --runtime=60 --group_reporting --name=4k_seq_test --size=2g" (single disk) write iops = 41730 write trans. avg. = 166920 KBps (166.92 MBps) (6-disk array) write iops = 105,437 write trans. avg. = 421750 KB/s (421.75 MBps) --------- Now to get a mix of read and writes together (70% read, 30% writes) with various block sizes and q-depth value changes, the following command is a RANDOM read/write (70% reads, 30% writes. Note the size option value has been shrunk to 512MB, the "--rw" option value has changed to "randrw" and the option "--rwmixread=70" has been added): "fio --filename=/path/to/file/on/disk --direct=1 --rw=randrw --rwmixread=70 --refill_buffers --norandommap --randrepeat=0 --ioengine=libaio --bs=4k --iodepth=4 --numjobs=4 --runtime=60 --group_reporting --name=4k_rwmix70-30_test --size=512MB" (single disk) read iops = 284 write iops = 121 read trans. avg. = 1137 KB/s (1.137 MBps) write trans. avg. = 484 KB/s (0.484 MBps) (6-disk array) read iops = 2255 write iops = 971 read trans. avg. = 9022 KB/s (9.22 MBps) write trans. avg. = 3886 KB/s (3.886 MBps) (8-disk array) read iops = 4456 write iops = 1906 read trans. avg. = 17827 KB/s (17.827 MBps) write trans. avg. = 7626.5 KB/s (7.6265 MBps) ---------- Changed block-size from 4k to 8k: "fio --filename=/path/to/file/on/disk --direct=1 --rw=randrw --rwmixread=70 --refill_buffers --norandommap --randrepeat=0 --ioengine=libaio --bs=8k --iodepth=4 --numjobs=4 --runtime=60 --group_reporting --name=4k_rwmix70-30_test --size=512MB" (single disk) read iops = 294 write iops = 127 read trans. avg. = 2359 KB/s (2.359 MBps) write trans. avg. = 1023 KB/s (1.023 MBps) (6-disk array) read iops = 2479 write iops = 1068 read trans. avg. = 19834 KB/s (19.834 MBps) write trans. avg. = 8551 KB/s (8.551 MBps) ---------- Changed block-size to 16k: "fio --filename=/path/to/file/on/disk --direct=1 --rw=randrw --rwmixread=70 --refill_buffers --norandommap --randrepeat=0 --ioengine=libaio --bs=16k --iodepth=4 --numjobs=4 --runtime=60 --group_reporting --name=4k_rwmix70-30_test --size=512MB" (single disk) read iops = 293 write iops = 125 read trans. avg. = 4691 KB/s (4.691 MBps) write trans. avg. = 2014 KB/s (2.014 MBps) (6-disk array) read iops = 2398 write iops = 1029 read trans. avg. = 38373 KB/s (38.373 MBps) write trans. avg. = 16470 KB/s (16.47 MBps) ----------- Changed to run sequential read and writes (70% reads and 30% writes)(rw=rw, size=2gb, bs=8): "fio --filename=/path/to/file/on/disk --direct=1 --rw=rw --rwmixread=70 --refill_buffers --norandommap --randrepeat=0 --ioengine=libaio --bs=8k --iodepth=4 --numjobs=4 --runtime=60 --group_reporting --name=4k_rwmix70-30_test --size=2g" (single disk) read iops = 1515 write iops = 650 read trans. avg. = 12127 KB/s (12.127 MBps) write trans. avg. = 5207 KB/s (5.207 MBps) (6-disk array) read iops = 41615 write iops = 17909 read trans. avg. = 332920 KB/s (332.92 MBps) write trans. avg. = 143272 KB/s (143.272 MBps) ------------- Changed q-depth to 16: "fio --filename=/path/to/file/on/disk --direct=1 --rw=rw --rwmixread=70 --refill_buffers --norandommap --randrepeat=0 --ioengine=libaio --bs=8k --iodepth=16 --numjobs=4 --runtime=60 --group_reporting --name=4k_rwmix70-30_test --size=2g" (single disk) read iops = 2087 write iops = 899 read trans. avg. = 16700 KB/s (16.7 MBps) write trans. avg. = 7193 KB/s (7.193 MBps) (6-disk) read iops = 41062 write iops = 17667 read trans. avg. = 328501 KB/s (328.501 MBps) write trans. avg. = 141342 KB/s (141.342 MBps) ------------- Changed q-depth to 32: "fio --filename=/path/to/file/on/disk --direct=1 --rw=rw --rwmixread=70 --refill_buffers --norandommap --randrepeat=0 --ioengine=libaio --bs=16k --iodepth=32 --numjobs=4 --runtime=60 --group_reporting --name=4k_rwmix70-30_test --size=2g" (single disk) read iops = 1283 write iops = 554 read trans. avg. = 20535 KB/s (20.535 MBps) write trans. avg. = 8871 KB/s (8.871 MBps) (6-disk disk) read iops = 31552 write iops = 13524 read trans. avg. = 504839 KB/s (504.839 MBps) write trans. avg. = 216388 KB/s (216.388 MBps) ----------- SUMMARY ----------- These drives have been rock-solid running 24/7. They are quite noisy when 'active' but personally, a moot 'issue' for me since it's located with multiple servers running 24/7. Drives are rated for 1M hours MTBF and have a 3 year warranty; really wish these were 5 year. I guess that if the Backblaze hard drive reliability reports can paint a relative picture to what can be expected of these drives - hopefully can mean that these will run reliably for some time.
Review: Best way to solve my storage problem, very happy - This solved a storage issue I had in the easiest way. I have been using WD drives for many years. I had a couple of green WD drives finally fail, and decided when I needed another drive to see what is working well for others today. HGST seemed to get the best recommendations for reliability. And, I needed a bigger drive for my primary drive for photo storage (was 4 GB WD black). Speed is good. Quiet. Cool enough but well-cooled tower so don't care for me. I thought of RAID smaller drives but decided once again not to add complexity. I have a pair of RAID0 500G Samsung 840EVO for my Lightroom Preview storage, and that has solved my image browsing performance issues w/o getting more complex on my primary storage. I have had this drive for I guess 6 months and no issues so far, but 4 years down the road will matter more than a few months. This machine is on 24x7. The WD Black I replaced had 4 years of continuous use. I've had one WD 2TB black and 2 WD 3TB green drives fail. I have probably 10 WD drives >2TB between primary and backup and etc. I will go with HGST from now on until I learn they don't deserve it, or until WD resolves their issues with green drives.

## Features

- 7200 RPM performance
- Up to 6TB capacity
- 1 million hours MTBF
- 6Gb/s SATA interface
- No additional hardware required

## Technical Specifications

| Specification | Value |
|---------------|-------|
| ASIN | B00O0M5QK8 |
| Additional Features | Portable |
| Best Sellers Rank | #7,077 in Internal Hard Drives #116,694 in Computer Internal Components |
| Brand | Western Digital |
| Built-In Media | Internal Hard Drive |
| Cache Memory Installed Size | 128 |
| Color | Silver |
| Compatible Devices | Desktop |
| Connectivity Technology | SATA |
| Customer Reviews | 4.1 out of 5 stars 137 Reviews |
| Data Transfer Rate | 600 megabits_per_second |
| Digital Storage Capacity | 6000 GB |
| Form Factor | 3.5-inch |
| Global Trade Identification Number | 00705487196900 |
| Hard Disk Description | Serial ATA-600 |
| Hard Disk Form Factor | 3.5 inches |
| Hard Disk Interface | Serial ATA-600 |
| Hard Disk Rotational Speed | 7200 rpm |
| Hard-Drive Size | 6 TB |
| Hardware Connectivity | SATA 6.0 Gb/s |
| Hardware Platform | PC |
| Installation Type | Internal Hard Drive |
| Item Weight | 1.6 pounds |
| Manufacturer | HGST, a Western Digital Company |
| Mfr Part Number | 0S03839 |
| Model Name | HGST, Western Digital company, Deskstar NAS 3.5-Inch 6TB 7200RPM SATA III 128MB Cache Internal Hard Drive (0S03839) |
| Model Number | 0S03839 |
| Number of Items | 1 |
| Special Feature | Portable |
| Specific Uses For Product | personal, gaming, business |
| UPC | 799198908914 705487196900 092992703274 693109444709 809395322199 801947303878 804067727661 808114327699 804904219915 |

## Images

![HGST Deskstar 7200rpm 128MB Cache SATA III 3.5" Internal NAS Drive Kit - Image 1](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81ITZ42Nd6L.jpg)
![HGST Deskstar 7200rpm 128MB Cache SATA III 3.5" Internal NAS Drive Kit - Image 2](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/710vZhAqziL.jpg)
![HGST Deskstar 7200rpm 128MB Cache SATA III 3.5" Internal NAS Drive Kit - Image 3](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/714bkeFsjvL.jpg)
![HGST Deskstar 7200rpm 128MB Cache SATA III 3.5" Internal NAS Drive Kit - Image 4](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81PJ9Pf5pSL.jpg)
![HGST Deskstar 7200rpm 128MB Cache SATA III 3.5" Internal NAS Drive Kit - Image 5](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71KqV9emxvL.jpg)

## Customer Reviews

### ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Solid performers, drive-seeks are noisy
*by M***G on March 26, 2015*

UDPATE 7/13/2016: Drives have been solid and still running 24/7 since purchased well over 1 year ago. S.M.A.R.T. values for all 8 disks are great. No complaints. I bought 9 of these drives; a few from Amazon and rest from other places to mix up the lots and dates of manufacture. 8 of the drives are in a RAID10 (3 sets of 2 disk span) configuration controlled by a dedicated LSI MegaRAID SAS 9361-8i PCI-Express 3.0 x8 12Gb/s (future proofing). The stripe defined is 256kb since will be storing mainly large files. However, benchmarking was done using single disk, 6-disk (3 sets of 2 disk span) and 8-disk (4 sets of 2 disk span) array configuration. Due to some unmentioned system limitations, the drives are set up in the same box as my ESXi host, a disk container created and attached to a guest machine that serves as my dedicated NAS; said guest machine runs CentOS 7.1 for an operating system. The filesystem chosen is XFS, as it scales well with large storage arrays. First, the partition will consist of the entire array size available. It was configured using the following set of commands (Note about "print" read-out below. I added pipe "|" separators as Amazon stripped out my formatting): # parted -a optimal /dev/sdx (parted) mklabel gpt (parted) unit s (parted) mkpart primary xfs 2048s 11721043967s (parted) print Number | Start | End | Size | File system | Name | Flags 1 | 2048s | 11721043967s | 11721041920s | xfs | primary | Verify alignment: (parted) align-check optimal 1 1 aligned Save/write partition: (parted) quit NOTE: For optimal/best performance, specify the 'optimal' command so the partition alignment boundary is in multiples of 1MiB (1024x1024); which then the starting sector (2048), the ending sector, minus 1 (11721043968 - 1) and the RAID stripe size (256) are all evenly divisible. The filesystem was created specifying the block-size, stride and stripe-width options for optimal performance with the array and the partition created. The command is as follows: # mkfs.xfs -b 4096 -E stride=64,stripe-width=256 /dev/sdx1 NOTE: Your numbers will be different. I highly recommand using a stride and stripe-width calculator available on The Web. You can verify the filesystem attributes once it is created using either of the commands below: # tune2fs -l /dev/sdx1 # dumpe2fs /dev/sdx1 | less -------------------------------------- SETUP: Keep in mind that many factors will effect performance - hardware capabilities/limitations, hardware controller configuration, RAID array stripe size, NIC card performance, caching, kernel I/O scheduler (Linux), the file-system format and options you choose (Linux - see below at 'stride' and 'stripe-width'), disk mounting options defaults/user-specified (Linux), router/switch, etc. I do not run actual server hardware, but a re-purposed micro-ATX 'desktop' converted to an ESXi host with various guest machines that draws an average ~144 watts. Here is the complete set-up: Fractal Design Node 804 Case 3 x Included fans that came with the Fractal Design Node 804 case 3 x Noctua SSO2 Bearing, Retail Cooling NF-F12 iPPC 2000 PWM Intel i7-4790S Haswell Quad-Core 3.2GHz LGA 1150 Z87 65W ASUS MAXIMUS VI GENE LGA 1150 G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 32GB (4x8GB) DDR3 2133 Samsung 850 Pro 512GB SSD Corsair RM750i 750 watt PSU (Had on-hand) CyberPower CP1500PFCLCD PFC UPS (supports my Corsair's "Active PFC") LSI 9300 MegaRAID SAS 9361-8i PCI-Express 3.0 x8 12Gb/s 2 x LSI LSI00410 0.6mm Internal Cable SFF8643 to x4 SATA HDD 8 x HGST Deskstar NAS 6TB 7200 RPM SATA 6.0Gb/s 128MB Cache For LAN benchmarks, the host machine is wired using CAT6 to an enterprise-class Ubiquiti EdgeRouter. Benchmarking includes scores from single disk, 6-disk and 8-disk RAID10 array. ------------------------------------------ BENCHMARKS: NOTE: These tests go a little deeper than your typical reviewer to show various scenerios and how these disks perform. If you don't understand q-depths, block-sizes, etc., how and when you'll generally face them - then I suggest you stick to the "HDParm" and "DD" scores below if you are looking for general performance scores. Samba 4 transfer of a 2GB file to another wired computer [Windows 8.1]: Sequential Read: 113 MBps Sequential Write: 113 MBps The theoretical maximum sequential transfer over Gigabit Ethernet is 125MBps (1000/8=125). Pretty darn close. I have tried tweaking SMB socket option values for my Samba configuration, increased the kernel read-ahead cache but it would appear that I have hit my ceiling. ---------- HDParm ---------- I ran HDParm 5 times and took the average: "hdparm -Tt /dev/sdx" (single disk) Cache read average: 16639 MBps Average = 200.444 MBps (6-disk array) Cache average = 16817 MBps Average = 632.578 MBps (8-disk array) Cache read average: 16538.47 MBps Average = 824.900 MBps ------------ DD ------------- I ran "dd" with the following parameters ("/temp/testfile" = RAID array disk partition mounted to /temp; "conv=fsync" to allow for synchronous IO; "rm /temp/testfile" to remove test file after completion): "dd if=/dev/zero of=/temp/testfile bs=1G count=12 conv=fsync; rm /temp/testfile" Single disk performance: 208 MB/s 6-disk RAID10 array sequential performance: 621 MB/s 8-disk RAID10 array sequential performance: 812 MB/s ------------ FIO ----------- Important note: FIO works at a low-level. Be sure that you specify a 'filename' or else tests will be written over your filesystem; most likely causing filesystem corruption. FIO is great for providing storage performance statistics based on more real-world scenerios with the abundance of options available, which I'll run through some below. NOTE: This part of the review assumes that you have the technical knowledge to understand the concepts being described. For the first performance test below it is a pretty straight-forward sequential read test based on a block-size of 4k, 4 worker processes, an io-depth of 4, a transfer of a 2GB file with a runtime of 60 seconds. Here is the command I used: "fio --filename=/path/to/file/on/disk --direct=1 --rw=read --refill_buffers --norandommap --randrepeat=0 --ioengine=libaio --bs=4k --iodepth=4 --numjobs=4 --runtime=60 --group_reporting --name=4k_seq_test --size=2g" (single disk) read iops = 41995 read trans. avg. = 167983 KB/s (167.983 MBps) (6-disk array) read iops = 126,167 read trans. avg. = 504668 KB/s (504.668 MBps) --------- Change to write-mode '--rw=write': "fio --filename=/path/to/file/on/disk --direct=1 --rw=write --refill_buffers --norandommap --randrepeat=0 --ioengine=libaio --bs=4k --iodepth=4 --numjobs=4 --runtime=60 --group_reporting --name=4k_seq_test --size=2g" (single disk) write iops = 41730 write trans. avg. = 166920 KBps (166.92 MBps) (6-disk array) write iops = 105,437 write trans. avg. = 421750 KB/s (421.75 MBps) --------- Now to get a mix of read and writes together (70% read, 30% writes) with various block sizes and q-depth value changes, the following command is a RANDOM read/write (70% reads, 30% writes. Note the size option value has been shrunk to 512MB, the "--rw" option value has changed to "randrw" and the option "--rwmixread=70" has been added): "fio --filename=/path/to/file/on/disk --direct=1 --rw=randrw --rwmixread=70 --refill_buffers --norandommap --randrepeat=0 --ioengine=libaio --bs=4k --iodepth=4 --numjobs=4 --runtime=60 --group_reporting --name=4k_rwmix70-30_test --size=512MB" (single disk) read iops = 284 write iops = 121 read trans. avg. = 1137 KB/s (1.137 MBps) write trans. avg. = 484 KB/s (0.484 MBps) (6-disk array) read iops = 2255 write iops = 971 read trans. avg. = 9022 KB/s (9.22 MBps) write trans. avg. = 3886 KB/s (3.886 MBps) (8-disk array) read iops = 4456 write iops = 1906 read trans. avg. = 17827 KB/s (17.827 MBps) write trans. avg. = 7626.5 KB/s (7.6265 MBps) ---------- Changed block-size from 4k to 8k: "fio --filename=/path/to/file/on/disk --direct=1 --rw=randrw --rwmixread=70 --refill_buffers --norandommap --randrepeat=0 --ioengine=libaio --bs=8k --iodepth=4 --numjobs=4 --runtime=60 --group_reporting --name=4k_rwmix70-30_test --size=512MB" (single disk) read iops = 294 write iops = 127 read trans. avg. = 2359 KB/s (2.359 MBps) write trans. avg. = 1023 KB/s (1.023 MBps) (6-disk array) read iops = 2479 write iops = 1068 read trans. avg. = 19834 KB/s (19.834 MBps) write trans. avg. = 8551 KB/s (8.551 MBps) ---------- Changed block-size to 16k: "fio --filename=/path/to/file/on/disk --direct=1 --rw=randrw --rwmixread=70 --refill_buffers --norandommap --randrepeat=0 --ioengine=libaio --bs=16k --iodepth=4 --numjobs=4 --runtime=60 --group_reporting --name=4k_rwmix70-30_test --size=512MB" (single disk) read iops = 293 write iops = 125 read trans. avg. = 4691 KB/s (4.691 MBps) write trans. avg. = 2014 KB/s (2.014 MBps) (6-disk array) read iops = 2398 write iops = 1029 read trans. avg. = 38373 KB/s (38.373 MBps) write trans. avg. = 16470 KB/s (16.47 MBps) ----------- Changed to run sequential read and writes (70% reads and 30% writes)(rw=rw, size=2gb, bs=8): "fio --filename=/path/to/file/on/disk --direct=1 --rw=rw --rwmixread=70 --refill_buffers --norandommap --randrepeat=0 --ioengine=libaio --bs=8k --iodepth=4 --numjobs=4 --runtime=60 --group_reporting --name=4k_rwmix70-30_test --size=2g" (single disk) read iops = 1515 write iops = 650 read trans. avg. = 12127 KB/s (12.127 MBps) write trans. avg. = 5207 KB/s (5.207 MBps) (6-disk array) read iops = 41615 write iops = 17909 read trans. avg. = 332920 KB/s (332.92 MBps) write trans. avg. = 143272 KB/s (143.272 MBps) ------------- Changed q-depth to 16: "fio --filename=/path/to/file/on/disk --direct=1 --rw=rw --rwmixread=70 --refill_buffers --norandommap --randrepeat=0 --ioengine=libaio --bs=8k --iodepth=16 --numjobs=4 --runtime=60 --group_reporting --name=4k_rwmix70-30_test --size=2g" (single disk) read iops = 2087 write iops = 899 read trans. avg. = 16700 KB/s (16.7 MBps) write trans. avg. = 7193 KB/s (7.193 MBps) (6-disk) read iops = 41062 write iops = 17667 read trans. avg. = 328501 KB/s (328.501 MBps) write trans. avg. = 141342 KB/s (141.342 MBps) ------------- Changed q-depth to 32: "fio --filename=/path/to/file/on/disk --direct=1 --rw=rw --rwmixread=70 --refill_buffers --norandommap --randrepeat=0 --ioengine=libaio --bs=16k --iodepth=32 --numjobs=4 --runtime=60 --group_reporting --name=4k_rwmix70-30_test --size=2g" (single disk) read iops = 1283 write iops = 554 read trans. avg. = 20535 KB/s (20.535 MBps) write trans. avg. = 8871 KB/s (8.871 MBps) (6-disk disk) read iops = 31552 write iops = 13524 read trans. avg. = 504839 KB/s (504.839 MBps) write trans. avg. = 216388 KB/s (216.388 MBps) ----------- SUMMARY ----------- These drives have been rock-solid running 24/7. They are quite noisy when 'active' but personally, a moot 'issue' for me since it's located with multiple servers running 24/7. Drives are rated for 1M hours MTBF and have a 3 year warranty; really wish these were 5 year. I guess that if the Backblaze hard drive reliability reports can paint a relative picture to what can be expected of these drives - hopefully can mean that these will run reliably for some time.

### ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Best way to solve my storage problem, very happy
*by G***S on August 5, 2015*

This solved a storage issue I had in the easiest way. I have been using WD drives for many years. I had a couple of green WD drives finally fail, and decided when I needed another drive to see what is working well for others today. HGST seemed to get the best recommendations for reliability. And, I needed a bigger drive for my primary drive for photo storage (was 4 GB WD black). Speed is good. Quiet. Cool enough but well-cooled tower so don't care for me. I thought of RAID smaller drives but decided once again not to add complexity. I have a pair of RAID0 500G Samsung 840EVO for my Lightroom Preview storage, and that has solved my image browsing performance issues w/o getting more complex on my primary storage. I have had this drive for I guess 6 months and no issues so far, but 4 years down the road will matter more than a few months. This machine is on 24x7. The WD Black I replaced had 4 years of continuous use. I've had one WD 2TB black and 2 WD 3TB green drives fail. I have probably 10 WD drives >2TB between primary and backup and etc. I will go with HGST from now on until I learn they don't deserve it, or until WD resolves their issues with green drives.

### ⭐⭐⭐⭐ A terrific drive, though extremely loud
*by S***. on December 11, 2016*

These are great drives. I've installed a bunch of them now. For raw storage, they have much better reliability than WD or Seagate, while achieving great speed in a mechanical drive. But....they are loud, and not just a little. In fact, they sound like they are about to fly apart. Great for a media server sitting in a closet, but they are a really bad choice for anything close enough that you'll hear it.

---

## Why Shop on Desertcart?

- 🛒 **Trusted by 1.3+ Million Shoppers** — Serving international shoppers since 2016
- 🌍 **Shop Globally** — Access 737+ million products across 21 categories
- 💰 **No Hidden Fees** — All customs, duties, and taxes included in the price
- 🔄 **15-Day Free Returns** — Hassle-free returns (30 days for PRO members)
- 🔒 **Secure Payments** — Trusted payment options with buyer protection
- ⭐ **TrustPilot Rated 4.5/5** — Based on 8,000+ happy customer reviews

**Shop now:** [https://www.desertcart.us/products/7822332-hgst-deskstar-7200rpm-128mb-cache-sata-iii-3-5-internal](https://www.desertcart.us/products/7822332-hgst-deskstar-7200rpm-128mb-cache-sata-iii-3-5-internal)

---

*Product available on Desertcart United States of America*
*Store origin: US*
*Last updated: 2026-08-27*