Jump to content


Photo

Western Digital Caviar WD800JB


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#26 Maverick

Maverick

    Member

  • Member
  • 27 posts

Posted 17 June 2002 - 04:08 AM

Anyone with comments on this?

"I'm interested to know what the WD800JB's RAID 0 performance is like as compared to say the IBM120GXP - when connected to an HPT372 on-board controller"

#27 JR

JR

    Member

  • Member
  • 126 posts

Posted 18 June 2002 - 02:22 PM

Anyone with comments on this?

"I'm interested to know what the WD800JB's RAID 0 performance is like as compared to say the IBM120GXP - when connected to an HPT372 on-board controller"


Mav, I'm going to have a pair of these in next week and I'll post my results in RAID-0 upon my Promise FastTrak100 TX2 setup...should be ungodly quick I'd imagine =:O

#28 Maverick

Maverick

    Member

  • Member
  • 27 posts

Posted 19 June 2002 - 12:32 AM

Great, look forward to seeing the results. Will you be able to compare their RAID 0 performance to the 120GXP's?

Cheers

#29 cklepinger

cklepinger

    Member

  • Member
  • 1 posts

Posted 28 June 2002 - 12:56 PM

Anybody Done A Raid 0 set on this drive yet???

I have, and I think im doing something wrong...
I have an abit at7 board kt333 chipset
it has a highpoint raid 4 channel controller onboard
and im getting really low scores out of PCMARK 2002
my scores are 1100 MAX. is this good or bad, becasue i had 2 ata133 maxtor drives on here that were 1200, so... maybe i am doing something wrong or i need to bench it on another program...

I am runnig a raid 0 set striped at 64K

#30 JR

JR

    Member

  • Member
  • 126 posts

Posted 28 June 2002 - 03:11 PM

Great, look forward to seeing the results.  Will you be able to compare their RAID 0 performance to the 120GXP's?

Cheers


Mav, just a note to let you know I'll have my 800JBs in this Monday the 1st and will post up my results soon thereafter in comparison to my dual 60GXP RAID-0 setup...

#31 Maverick

Maverick

    Member

  • Member
  • 27 posts

Posted 28 June 2002 - 03:13 PM

Any reason you chose a 64k stripe? The concensus on many Forums seems to be 16k/16k (stripe/cluster) for normal use. 64k is preferable for video editing (ie. if you regularly access/edit very large files)

#32 Maverick

Maverick

    Member

  • Member
  • 27 posts

Posted 28 June 2002 - 03:17 PM

Mav, just a note to let you know I'll have my 800JBs in this Monday the 1st and will post up my results soon thereafter in comparison to my dual 60GXP RAID-0 setup...


Great. What stripe & cluster size are you going to use?

#33 JR

JR

    Member

  • Member
  • 126 posts

Posted 28 June 2002 - 03:18 PM

Anybody Done A Raid 0 set on this drive yet???

I am runnig a raid 0 set striped at 64K


Hi, something is definitely wrong somewhere I'd say but as far as block size is concerned, you'll achieve much better results with a 16k block/16k cluster combo arrangement...also give HD Tach a try for benchmarking.

#34 JR

JR

    Member

  • Member
  • 126 posts

Posted 02 July 2002 - 12:56 AM

Great, look forward to seeing the results.  Will you be able to compare their RAID 0 performance to the 120GXP's?

Cheers


Hi Mav, ok well I got the 800JBs in today(July 1st), installed as per usual but I noticed that the RAID array only showed as 21G or thereabouts so must be something with the 137G limit so I'm curious what's going on here so I can partition as usual. Anyhow I've tried 16k and 32k block sizes so far and I'm stunned to see that under HD Tach the avg read speeds are LOWER than my 60GXPs in RAID-0! I get approx 52kps for avg read speed with the 800JBs whereas before with the 60GXPs I got around 78kps, man wtf??? I also noticed that the bursts were also lower by a bit. I'm going to try an 8K block size for kicks to humor myself as I'm lost to why this is occuring...

#35 Maverick

Maverick

    Member

  • Member
  • 27 posts

Posted 02 July 2002 - 11:40 PM

Hi JR, that's interesting. The Overclokers Australia Reviewer (Chainbolt) preferred IBM 120GXP's as the choice of drive for RAID 0 setups (even though the WDJB's also performed well). After further testing, you'll soon see if you agree or not.

By the way, what's your setup? Are you running Win XP?

Are you using the Promise drivers/BIOS or are you using your O/S (Win XP or 2k) to configure the array, ie. via Disk Management.

Did you use the procedure below and/or the Breeze or Via patch?

http://forums.overcl...6734#post726734

Cheers

#36 singe

singe

    Member

  • Member
  • 2 posts

Posted 04 July 2002 - 01:33 PM

I'm quite happy with both of them.  The maxtor "feels" like it has a bit faster access time in some cases/applications but for me, and for my kind of normal daily use, the 800JB wins hands down.  The WD is also amazingly quiet, nearly dead silent, and I love that.

Cheers



I have ATM a Barracuda IV and the drive feels slow when i browse my 'incoming' folder for example. I've actually never liked the drive.

The only thing i want is quick loading of IE, divx/vcd/svcd, fast browsing etc. And my barracuda IV doesn't do this for me.

Should I choose a drive with FAST access time or do you think this drive will make me 'happy'?? I don't really care that much about the benchmarks anymore caus the barracuda IV gets good point but my drive has never felt fast. Does this drive feel fast? I don't care about the 'copy' speed, i just want a drive that is alert when i browse and use my files.

#37 BWM

BWM

    Member

  • Member
  • 70 posts

Posted 04 July 2002 - 03:36 PM

If it is safe to say that the Cuda IV and Maxtor D740X perform is a similar manner, then I would have to say the WD800JB would still me my first choice. I have two machines that differ ONLY in that one has 40 Gig Maxtor D740X drives, the other has WD800JB drives. The WD equipped machine is quieter, boots notably faster, and feels faster overall, especially when handling large files. Outlook Express loves the JB more in my case because of the many large newsgroups I follow. OE is noticeably faster all-around for me.

#38 Maverick

Maverick

    Member

  • Member
  • 27 posts

Posted 04 July 2002 - 08:35 PM

This thread may be of interest for anyone who wants to RAID their Cuda IV's:

http://forums.overcl...15&pagenumber=3

#39 Alkali

Alkali

    Member

  • Member
  • 228 posts

Posted 10 August 2002 - 04:59 PM

I'd like to report that I've bought one of these WD800JB drives, and am very very happy with it :)

The drive is indeed very quiet, and it seems far faster than the old maxtor and quantum drives I had once upon a time.

regards,
Alkali

#40 Morninglight

Morninglight

    Member

  • Member
  • 42 posts

Posted 10 August 2002 - 11:18 PM

I've just ordered a WB800JB, bit overpriced overhere 8O

€144 for a 80GB drive... the seagate barracude IV sells for €30 less :(

€1=$1 :)

#41 Bob Wells

Bob Wells

    Member

  • Member
  • 2 posts

Posted 20 August 2002 - 09:53 AM

For those interested, I did a review of the Promise FastTrak100 TX-4 card with 2 (at the time) IBM 60GXP's, running RAIDØ, back in February of this year. I've since added another pair of matched 60GXP's and am now running a WD800JB (on mobo controller) as the OS (or main) drive.

#42 Bob Wells

Bob Wells

    Member

  • Member
  • 2 posts

Posted 21 August 2002 - 02:34 PM

Well, I spoke too soon about the IBM 60GXP's I guess; One of the four ate the big one last night @ about 10:30PM :( . FWIW, apparently there is no longer the option of giving credit card info to expedite replacement (so the drives will cross in the mail) either, so its wait for 7-14 days or go out and buy another drive {grrrr!}. So, I've opted for the later and bought a WD 40 gig as a replacement :) .

#43 Yotee

Yotee

    Member

  • Member
  • 1 posts

Posted 10 November 2002 - 06:27 PM

I have an Abit KR7-R mobo now setup with the RAID 0 as 2 - 20 gig D740L drives and will be going to 2 WD800JB's this week. I'm hoping this is an improvement. The only test program I have is Sisoft Sandry 2002. It test this raid array as transferring 38500/sec, only 2000/sec below the top U160 scsi drive @40,000/sec. I'll post the results soon.

#44 Mike V

Mike V

    Member

  • Member
  • 6 posts

Posted 21 November 2002 - 06:22 PM

I have a question about the WD800JB.

I am running an older 400 Mhz Celeron with 256 MB RAM and a WD 20 GB HDD. My hard drive is down to 2 GB of space left and I am considering a new hard drive. Would the WD800JB with it's 8 MB buffer offer me any speed difference in comparison to the WD800BB's 2 MB buffer?

Thanks

Mike

#45 ehurtley

ehurtley

    Member

  • Member
  • 870 posts

Posted 22 November 2002 - 01:00 AM

I have a question about the WD800JB.

I am running an older 400 Mhz Celeron with 256 MB RAM and a WD 20 GB HDD. My hard drive is down to 2 GB of space left and I am considering a new hard drive. Would the WD800JB with it's 8 MB buffer offer me any speed difference in comparison to the WD800BB's 2 MB buffer?

Thanks

Mike


Yes, but probably not enough to notice on that system.
Motorola 68000@8Mhz | 1.5MB 30-pin DRAM | Single 800kB 3.5" Floppy
Intel Core Duo@2GHz | 2GB DDR2-667 SDRAM | Seagate 7200RPM 100GB 2.5" HD
Intel Core i7@4GHz | 6 GB DDR3-1600 SDRAM | Seagate 7200RPM 1 TB 3.5" HD

#46 Mike V

Mike V

    Member

  • Member
  • 6 posts

Posted 27 November 2002 - 08:31 PM

Thanks ehurtley.

I bought the hard drive from Buy.com and it arrived yesterday.

It took me over 2 hours to copy the 17 gigs from the old HD to the new 80 GB one using Power Quest Drive Image 3.0.
I can't wait to upgrade to a 2.4 GHz P4 with a 533 MHz FSB. :lol:

Mike

#47 Mike V

Mike V

    Member

  • Member
  • 6 posts

Posted 27 November 2002 - 08:35 PM

After formatting my drive and cloning my old HDD to it, it only shows 63.9 GB capacity when viewing the properties. I know an 80 GB HDD isn't really 80 GB, but shouldn't it be a little more than that?

Thanks

Mike

#48 ehurtley

ehurtley

    Member

  • Member
  • 870 posts

Posted 27 November 2002 - 09:16 PM

After formatting my drive and cloning my old HDD to it, it only shows 63.9 GB capacity when viewing the properties. I know an 80 GB HDD isn't really 80 GB, but shouldn't it be a little more than that?


Hmmm, mine shows about 75GB (Well, I've got two of them RAID-0'ed, and they show up as a 149GB drive in Windows, so that's about 75 each.) Since you said you copied your 17GB drive to it, are you sure you didn't create a 17GB partition, and now have 63GB of free space left?
Motorola 68000@8Mhz | 1.5MB 30-pin DRAM | Single 800kB 3.5" Floppy
Intel Core Duo@2GHz | 2GB DDR2-667 SDRAM | Seagate 7200RPM 100GB 2.5" HD
Intel Core i7@4GHz | 6 GB DDR3-1600 SDRAM | Seagate 7200RPM 1 TB 3.5" HD

#49 Mike V

Mike V

    Member

  • Member
  • 6 posts

Posted 27 November 2002 - 10:01 PM

[quote="ehurtley

Since you said you copied your 17GB drive to it, are you sure you didn't create a 17GB partition, and now have 63GB of free space left?[/QUOTE]

I don't think I did that but who knows. :lol:

I slaved the WD800JB to the existing WD 205BA, rebooted with a floppy boot disk, ran FDISK on the WD800JB, and then rebooted and formatted it.
When I was done copying the old drive to the new, I shut down, removed the old HDD and replaced it with the WD800JB and then booted up again.
I thought I would have to go back into FDISK again and enable the partition on the new drive to get it to boot, but it booted fine.
Did I make a mistake somewhere along the line? It's been a while since I've upgraded my HDD and I'm a bit rusty.

Mike

#50 Mike V

Mike V

    Member

  • Member
  • 6 posts

Posted 27 November 2002 - 10:18 PM

 
Since you said you copied your 17GB drive to it, are you sure you didn't create a 17GB partition, and now have 63GB of free space left?


I found the problem!

I ran Partition Magic to see what I had and it showed 65 GB on the primary partition and 10 GB of free space.
When I ran Drive Image last night I chose the 'Automatic' option and it must have made that 10GB as free space for whatever reason.

I guess I can just have Partition Magic fix the problem right?

Mike



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users