Sign in to follow this  
duncanvdlinden

WD3200KS vs WD3200AAKS

Recommended Posts

Hello,

I want to create a Intel matrix raid raid0/raid5 array with 3 disks.

Because i've already a WD3200KS i have the idea to buy two another ones.

But nowdays you only can buy the WD3200AAKS. Makes it any different to use two of these with

the older 3200ks? what's exactly the difference between the old and the new one?

or could i better buy a whole new raid 5 array.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 888
what's exactly the difference between the old and the new one?

1) 2 higher density platters vs. 3 lower density platters.

2) different firmwares

3) head parking ramp technology used in newer model

It's better to use just same models in RAID array (gives maximum performance) but generally it works ok also if they are different.

BTW, older WD3200KS are still available in some local stores here and there. Just old stock. You must just search around...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what's exactly the difference between the old and the new one?

1) 2 higher density platters vs. 3 lower density platters.

2) different firmwares

3) head parking ramp technology used in newer model

It's better to use just same models in RAID array (gives maximum performance) but generally it works ok also if they are different.

BTW, older WD3200KS are still available in some local stores here and there. Just old stock. You must just search around...

I'v read the reviews and the 3200AAKS, very nice an fast disk, so i've found a good deal (66 euro each) and order two of those, so i'm first going to use them in raid-0 and use my old 3200ks as backup disk. Maybe i expand it later to raid-5 with an extra wd3200aaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody know why my benchmarks are so strange in the beginning of the hdd's?

hdtachyo4.jpg

from 0GB to 240GB it gives a strange patern.

I use 7.0.0.1020 raid drivers with windows Vista, and a stripesize of 128k (default).

Matrix storage monitor report the drives use Sata2 and NCQ.

Could sata cables a problem? I use sata cables shipped with an Sata1 Mainboard, so these are as far i can see not so-called sata2 cables.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but i've got strange hdtach results:

There could be various reasons, I have these in mind:

1) Have you done the long bench or the fast one? the fast one is less precise. Also if you would use HDTach RW, you could use the "full bench" and get a more reliable result

2) It could be related to the Stripe size of your array, HDTach seems to give strange results with large stripes (it also depends on the number of disks in the array)

3) Was that disk your system disk? Any disk access during the bench will mess up the result somewhat.

These are some ideas...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Somebody know why my benchmarks are so strange in the beginning of the hdd's?

hdtachyo4.jpg

from 0GB to 240GB it gives a strange patern.

I use 7.0.0.1020 raid drivers with windows Vista, and a stripesize of 128k (default).

Matrix storage monitor report the drives use Sata2 and NCQ.

Could sata cables a problem? I use sata cables shipped with an Sata1 Mainboard, so these are as far i can see not so-called sata2 cables.

I asked a similar question a few weeks ago. See the thread here:

http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?showtopic=25517

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this