Davin

Western Digital Caviar WD2000BB/JB

Recommended Posts

I wish they made a 64bit 66mhz Rocket Drive. That would be a great drive for Win swap space and scratch disks. Anyone know where they are selling these? BTW, the 64bit/66mhz slots have 528mb/s available bandwidth, vs 133mb/s with the 32bit/33mhz pci slots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw these prices down at http://www.cenatek.com/store :

Rocket Drive for Windows, Linux and FreeBSD with 512MB - 999$

Rocket Drive for Windows, Linux and FreeBSD with 1GB - 1,799$

Rocket Drive for Windows, Linux and FreeBSD with 2GB - 2,999$

Rocket Drive for Windows, Linux and FreeBSD with 4GB - 4,999$

Wow, I wonder how would my busy File Sever handle these cuties ;-)

Wonder how much time it take Windows to load on that thing...

Keep Dreaming...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the included ATA controller card with the wd2000jb - the documentation suggests that the card is required as current motherboard technology has a 137gb limit.

My question is this: if I go ahead and install the drive on the card, and partition it down so that each partition is <137gb, can I then transfer the drive to a standard IDE controller? Not really keen on losing a PCI slot to this controller card.

FYI, the system used is an MSI K7T 266 Pro2 ru.

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Without the PCI Card.

this (http://www.msi.com.tw/program/support/bios/bos/spt_bos_detail.php?UID=98&NAME=MS-6330) page says that u can use Maxtor 160GB HDD.

So I think u can use any >137GB HDD's.

I suggest u to mail MSI about this...

I appreciate the response.

Actually, I have email MSI regarding this. Unfortunately, my experience with MSI is that response time is overly slow.

Regarding the bios, my K7T 266 Pro2 ru is actually the MS-6380 rather than the 6330. While the bios updates for the 6380 do not mention support for >137 drives, I'd be surprised that the older 6330 would provide support if the 6380 does not. So ... I'll go ahead and give it a shot, and will post my results.

Thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for review.

I just wanted to point out that "Analyze Disk Write Service Time" for the WD2000JB is shown as 0.0ms in the Database.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From the review: 

The article mentioned that if I buy a WD800JB today it could be the previous generation 40gb platter configuration, or the new generation with 60gb platters.  How can I distinguish this?

There are three ways I'm aware of for telling them apart:

1. Serial number prefix (you'll have to contact WD for the prefixes for 40 vs. 60 GB/platter).

2. Physically different covers.

3. Slight difference in total sectors on drive (there's a thread in the Computers forum on this, with info originally from Tom's Hardware).

Personally, I highly doubt any 800JB drives out there will have the newer 60 GB/platter disks, since it's not a nice multiple of 60.

I contacted WD and answer is: there is no WD1200JB with two platers,only 40 GB/plater

and they hawe 234,441,648 sectors per drive(not 234,375,000 what we can see on Tom's Hardware review).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I contacted WD and answer is: there is no WD1200JB with two platers,only 40 GB/plater and they hawe 234,441,648 sectors per drive(not 234,375,000 what we can see on Tom's Hardware review).

I have in my hands a WD1200JB with 234,375,000 sectors. It says so right on the top of the drive. Mfr date is Oct-28-2002. Model is WD1200JB-75CRA0, and serial number is WD-WMA82C287****.

Anyone care to guess if this is a 60GB/platter model?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maxtor is now shipping a 250GB ATA drive. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why higher density on platter drives more faster than having more platters? (As has been cited here much).

On tests old drivers some faster with same size... ?

Right?

Raid effect is more on last choice?

which is companies speed efficiency per drive? (WD per Maxtor)

can some one inform?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got me a 200 gig from best buy ( ya i know stop laughing) for $349, and its got a $130 rebate from best buy, not wd. The drive was a pain to install. my abit bd7-raid was sopost to support it. it takes 2 min to reconise it, and it still doesnt like it, this is both on the ide channels and the raid setup with the 911 newest bios. I ended up having to use the older ata100 card that came with it instead of my onboard ata133 promise controller. The drive software that comes with it also didnt work. I had to use driveimage. Also the stock xp drivers dont like this card. i had to use the supplied disk to get windows to stop freezing 30 sec into the boot. I love this 8 meg cache, i have the jb set as my boot partition and then copied 50 gigs from a ibm 120gxp to it and it only took 20 min, and i could do stuff normaly while it copied. It was totaly transparent, like i wasnt copying anything at all, i could load just about anything short of a game of quake and not tell the drive was copying. Also in my tests the 120gxp got 809 marks in mad onions 2002 test and the jb got 935.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

930/800 performance seems not great according to price ratio.

copy procedure is rare, and not shows much, when drive-drive operation is used.

What is your visible advantaje of big WD over IBM?

WHow about Boot-up speed, and load application?

If you know,

Does FAT32 when used with remeber application cilinder sequence loads

much more faster than 20% of nonsequrity speed difference?

NTFS - is stable system for 20%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It cracks me up. These die hard SCSI defenders. You have an IDE drive spinning at 7200RPM vs. a SCSI at 15K RPM. The IDE drive still pulls off comparable I/O's a second, which is what counts in servers, and the Sustained data throughput is right there as well, which is what you are after when a game loads. The disk access may be slower, but check the cost per megabyte at the super low access rate.

In my book, until SCSI can get capacity back, it is a dead technology. 3 36gig SCSI drives in an RAID 5 array is so slow it makes me sick. I would send anyone to a mirrored IDE config.

As a side note, check the cost per controller for SCSI and IDE as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It cracks me up.  These die hard SCSI defenders.  You have an IDE drive spinning at 7200RPM vs. a SCSI at 15K RPM.  The IDE drive still pulls off comparable I/O's a second, which is what counts in servers, and the Sustained data throughput is right there as well, which is what you are after when a game loads.  The disk access may be slower, but check the cost per megabyte at the super low access rate.

Just a note... SR's official stance is that top 7200 RPM ATA drives rival 10k RPM drives and I agree with SpeedRacer's comments that many readers seem blind to the fact. ATA drives deliver comparable I/O's per second in localized access patterns that represent desktop usage.

For server usage, I/Os per second delivered by SCSI drives are still far superior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought WD1200JB,

can you tell me why this drive is so LOUD?

more than all else devices!

(And Comparing to seagate).

It is really compensating it's big speed for what it was got...

Need additional sound isolating device to add?

Or it can be tuned to low noise? As I heard.

By which utility?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It cracks me up.  These die hard SCSI defenders.  You have an IDE drive spinning at 7200RPM vs. a SCSI at 15K RPM.  The IDE drive still pulls off comparable I/O's a second, which is what counts in servers, and the Sustained data throughput is right there as well, which is what you are after when a game loads.  The disk access may be slower, but check the cost per megabyte at the super low access rate.

Just a note... SR's official stance is that top 7200 RPM ATA drives rival 10k RPM drives and I agree with SpeedRacer's comments that many readers seem blind to the fact. ATA drives deliver comparable I/O's per second in localized access patterns that represent desktop usage.

For server usage, I/Os per second delivered by SCSI drives are still far superior.

What's REALLY sad is the fact that they don't just strap a SCSI controller on the bottom of one of these high end IDE drives.

(as far as I *KNOW* they are identical inside,... right - unless my knowledge is not as good as I thought)

Also doesn't sata (SLIGHTLY) bridge the gap between IDE and scsi with a couple of "advanced commands" of some sort which optomises data throughput / drive response etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one wants to make a 7200 rpm SCSI drive with large capacity, yet only be able to sell at typical IDE prices (or maybe a slight premium for the SCSI interface). On the flip side, no one wants to pay the premium if they're going to still have typical IDE mechanics inside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, how's reliability of these drives going? I have a few dead ones at work, but with over a hundred of these drives in service, a few dead ones don't surprise me at this point in time...

(or was it the 180GB ones... crap. I'm getting old and forgetful...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you can feel a screw under the product label over the motor (where a motor screw *should* be), it's a ball-bearing drive. If it's smooth, it's a fluid-bearing drive.

Is there more cost to making FDB drives?

and if not, why don't they just do it for all models.

I recently bought a 200JB (awaiting arrival) and I'd be mighty disapointed if I got a non FDB drive because WD continue to make the old tech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK admin, 3 questions

1. Why do the benchmarks indicates 2000jb faster than 1200jb?

Is it density, additional platters, or some other magic?

2. Why 8 meg, why not 16,32,64,128 meg? Space/Cost?

Is the 8 meg used for write through cache as well??, battery backup?

3. Are there some jb units with fbr and others ball bearing?

Assumption: fbr -> less noise, less heat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Because the 2000JB has higher density platters (66 GB/platter) than the 1200JB reviewed (which had 40 GB/platter, though newer versions with 60 GB platters are now available). The performance benefit from higher data density on the platters is also linked to the benefit from using a larger capacity disk, meaning that any given amount of data will be spread across a radially narrower portion of the platters.

2. Because of the very tight margins in the HDD industry. It's a cost issue, linked to the relatively low demand for premium price drives with extra large caches. Laptop drives sometimes feature larger (16 MB) caches for power saving reasons, but they don't make up (in performance terms) for the faster spin speeds, actuators and firmware optimisations available in desktop drives.

3. I think you mean Fluid Dynamic Bearings. The WD JB line does not feature FDBs on any model - they're all Ball Bearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SR doesn’t have the statistic I need – write speed for analog video capture

Storage Review (SR) has a phenominal amount of data and I appreciate the amount of work that has gone into this site. However, I need to know the minimum disk write speed and it does not appear that this statistic is reported.

I need to know if a drive will be fast enough for capture of analog video. Videomaker magazine says I need a disk with 12 MB/s for analog capture (which is more demanding than the 3.5 MB/s needed for DV capture).

The sustained transfer rate (STR) that SR reports is evidently not the statistic I need. For example, SR reports the WD 2000JB 200 GB STR as 32.8 MB/e (end), but another Web page reports a miminum write speed for that drive as 10.8 MB/s, which is below the speed I need, according to Videomaker.

Is there a way to derive the minimum write speed from the data that SR reports? I believe I need a mimimum speed statistic in order to avoid dropped frames.

One local shop is proposing to build a digital video editing PC for me with SCSI drives, but I do not want to go to that expense if I can find an ATA drive that is fast enough. I do plan to have a second ATA drive dedicated for for video editing.

(I am a new member and wanted to post this as a new topic that is not specific to this particular drive, but the forum will not, for some reason, allow me to post a new topic).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SR doesn’t have the statistic I need – write speed for analog video capture

Storage Review (SR) has a phenominal amount of data and I appreciate the amount of work that has gone into this site.  However, I need to know the minimum disk write speed and it does not appear that this statistic is reported.

I need to know if a drive will be fast enough for capture of analog video.  Videomaker magazine says I need a disk with 12 MB/s for analog capture (which is more demanding than the 3.5 MB/s needed for DV capture).

The sustained transfer rate (STR) that SR reports is evidently not the statistic I need.  For example, SR reports the WD 2000JB 200 GB STR as 32.8 MB/e (end), but another Web page reports a miminum write speed for that drive as 10.8 MB/s, which is below the speed I need, according to Videomaker.

Is there a way to derive the minimum write speed from the data that SR reports?  I believe I need a mimimum speed statistic in order to avoid dropped frames.

One local shop is proposing to build a digital video editing PC for me with SCSI drives, but I do not want to go to that expense if I can find an ATA drive that is fast enough.  I do plan to have a second ATA drive dedicated for for video editing.

(I am a new member and wanted to post this as a new topic that is not specific to this particular drive, but the forum will not, for some reason, allow me to post a new topic).

I'd reccomend posting this as a new topic in the "computers" forum...only admins can make new posts here (one per review)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I need to know if a drive will be fast enough for capture of analog video.  Videomaker magazine says I need a disk with 12 MB/s for analog capture (which is more demanding than the 3.5 MB/s needed for DV capture).

One local shop is proposing to build a digital video editing PC for me with SCSI drives, but I do not want to go to that expense if I can find an ATA drive that is fast enough.  I do plan to have a second ATA drive dedicated for for video editing.

RAID dude, RAID-0 to be precise. It's a sucker job to pay $$$$ for superfast single drives. If you want to spend more cash, get a dedicated RAID card, but that's not necessary unless you also want to put your OS on the RAID.

Those Drivezillas each come with a controller card. Get 2 or three drives, attach one drive per ATA channel, use your OS to partition them as RAID-) (striping). The data is written across three drives, in parallel, for an almost linear speed-up. For example, two drives with 20 MB/s in RAID-0 will give you around 35MB/s in RAID-0, and 50MB/s in a 3-drive configuration. And these are conservative, worst-case inner-track drive data rates. You are really only limited by the bandwidth of your PCI slots, which in a worst 33MHz, 32-bit config is around 130MB/s. You can double that by going 64-bit, and double it again by going 66MHz to around 520MB/s.

I see these 200GB Drivezillas for around $120 at Dell, CompUSA, and so on (after rebate). At that price, I'd get 4 of them, use two controller cards, two drives per disk. You should get between 90MB/s and 200MB/s (depending on your PCI slots).

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