One thing that bothers me a bit: It seems that the smaller drives has a lower spare area percentage than the 300GB drive.
120GB: Physical 120GB, user capacity 111GB, spare ares 9GB which is 7.5%
160GB: Physical 160GB, user capacity 149GB, spare area 11GB which is 6.9%
300GB: Physical 320GB, user capacity 279GB, spare area 41GB which is 12.8%
600GB: Phycical 640GB, user capacity 558GB, spare area 82GB which is 12.8%
The user capacity numbers are from anandtechs review.
Does this mean that the smaller drives does not have the same RAID4-like redundancy as the 300GB drive? Or am I wrong about the physival sizes of the smaller drives?