Western Digital Caviar WD2000BB/JB

Recommended Posts

please read http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?...ST&f=14&t=10567 before considering 'raid, dude'

From your link, dude, "RAID 0 does have its advantages in a handful of key applications and uses where data files are huge and/or data requests are highly sequential in nature". I believe the request was for a drive architecture that suitable for *video*. RAID-O is eminently suitable for this purpose. This advice was intended as a RAID primer.

I am well aware of how to optimize RAID for different applications: my main server has a 1TB RAID-5 array for media storage and a dual 15K SCSI RAID-1 array for the web server. Similarly, my main workstation has two implementations of RAID-0, SCSI and ATA, for different applications.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

and it depends upon the type of access. in many situations, 2 separate drives will yield faster results. his request was for a drive that could do 13mb/s - that isn't hard for a decent single drive.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Around July 2003 I bought a WD2000JB (-00DUA0, s/n WMACK...), made in July 2003. I measured the transfer rates with both WinBench and H2BenchW, and got similar results for both benchmarks, and using two different controllers (ATA/100 and ATA/133). For example H2Bench reports read max/avg/min as 55629/45070/30051 KB/s. The write rates are almost the same.

A couple of weeks ago I bought another, thinking to make a RAID-1 (mirrored) pair. It had the model-number suffix -00EVA0 and a/n WMAEH..., made in Nov 2003. I also measured its performance and found it to be about 20% slower: 45328/38792/27714 KB/s; again the write rates are nearly the same.

The measurements were made under the same conditions -- the only disk on a controller, configured as master, under Windows XP in safe mode. (For the first disk I had tried measurements with two different controllers, and got essentially the same results).

The numbers for the first (faster) disk seem to match what I've seen here and elsewhere on the Web.

Has anyone else found newer drives to be slower? I sent the results to Western Digital support, and the answer was that "they are both in spec" so not to worry. I have returned the slow disk for a refund, but would still like to find another like the original. The disks currently in stock (at Fry's in California) are mainly very new, Feb-Apr 2004. Any idea how they'd be?

- Pete


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