I am going to choose between this drive (WD2500JD) and a Barracuda 200 GB, or respective PATA versions.
I have several questions for those in the know:
1) I know SATA(-1) doesn't have tagged command queueing, but do the PATA versions of this drive have it?
2) I assume the PATA-100 drives are not actually slower than the SATA versions, as long as I keep one on each channel, right?
3) from the reviews it seens the WD is a little faster for most tests, and while the seagate is quieter idle it is louder when in use. And a bit hotter which means it consume more power. So far correct?
I tend to the WD drive based on this
And to PATA because I often need to connect many drives to one motherboard and being able to temporarily connect multiple drives to one channel is a huge advantage. Also, I'd like to be able to use the drives on external USB/firewire enclosures and there don't seem to be SATA ones available, and even if, I already have PATA ones.
Longer story/more info:
My requirements, in order of importance:
- reliability (I just had 2 out of 3 Maxtor 160 GB failing and will replace the whole array)
- capacity (want to keep number of drives low), and the WD has a 250 GB version
- low idle noise
- low power consumption/heat
- seek time
I use 3-4 drives in RAID-0 and RAID-5. Since the RAID-0 part will bring sustained throughput right to the PCI bus limit I don't really care for throughput, but there's still a noticable difference in seek times, especially in the RAID-5 parts of the array.
If you are still with me, thanks for reading.
Do you think I'll be better off with the WD or the Seagate?