Davin

Western Digital Caviar WD2500JB

Recommended Posts

Though it delivers file server performance in line with that of the WD2000JB, the Caviar WD2500JB stumbles a bit when it comes to the read-intensive Web Server DriveMark 2002.

I'm not sure what is meant by this statement. Compared to the WD2000JB, the 2500 is better in the web server DriveMark. Compared to the other drives, the WD remains in 3rd place. Meanwhile, it is slightly slower than the 2000 on the File Server test. Clarification, please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyways:

Hasn't anyone noticed the top plate cover for this drive, it has changed; i'd like to know why? ANyway, it is only a big drive, nothing more. I just hope that maxtor can release their mammoth drive 300 gig sometime soon, so SR can review it! It also help if SR started talking more about servers, since more and more SR people are considering it. I would be happy to start a section, since I am an expert in ATA servers!!!...

thx mann!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure what is meant by this statement. Compared to the WD2000JB, the 2500 is better in the web server DriveMark. Compared to the other drives, the WD remains in 3rd place. Meanwhile, it is slightly slower than the 2000 on the File Server test. Clarification, please?

Indeed, there was a mixup :oops:

It's slated to be fixed, thanks :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyways:

Hasn't anyone noticed the top plate cover for this drive, it has changed; i'd like to know why?

I've noticed top cover designs change somewhat between generations for just about everybody. The extent of the changes are dependent on design requirements. Some are just more noticeable than others.

I suppose we could email WD and ask why they changed it, but I somehow doubt they'd give a detailed answer. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
areal density continues to be a relative non-factor in driving today's performance to higher levels.

Great point! The performance benefits of areal density are a function of net gain over the predecessor, i.e, 67GB-to-83GB is a 24% increase; compare to 40GB-to-67GB with a 68% increase in areal density. When expressed as a percentage of the predecessor, one can quickly see that innovation must progress leaps and bounds to remain as significant as prior achievements.

I purchased the WD2500JB on Monday for $229 at CompUSA (the rebate offer is good through 19-April) as a replacement for the WD1200JB I use as a media storage drive (unfortunately the 120GB capacity became insufficient). It was the excellent service of the WD1200JB that prompted me to purchase the successor. Unfortunately, without the rebate I question if the WD2500JB is a better value than the WD2000JB at otherwise current prices.

Excellent review Eugene! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:huh:

I have a Western Digital Caviar Special WD2500JD 250GB SATA hard drive which is coonected to the Silicon Image Sil3112 SATA RAID controller on my Abit NF7-S version 2.0, BIOS version 1.9.

Right now, running d'peg (a disk and CPU intensive duplicate image searcher) I have kernel usage of the CPU (T-bred B 2400+ XP@200x10) at 20-30%, I have reason to believe that the high kernel CPU usage is caused by the hard drive (since nothing much else is going on that'd explain a high kernel CPU usage).

Now here is the question:

Is high CPU usage a common problem for non-native SATA hard drives ?(i.e. the WD2500JB like all SATA hard drives, so far, except the Seagates use a PATA to SATA translator chip).

Is the cause my controller? (I don't believe so I had the same problem with a Promise SATA150 TX2+)

Why doesn't Storagereview test for CPU usage? (Is it included in one of the tests? I'm confused) I mean, it's fairly important for both workstations and for gaming.

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd expect CPU usage for a single disc (SATA, PATA or SCSI) to remain below 10% the whole time, especially on a modern CPU like yours. There's little to choose between PATA & SATA as far as CPU usage goes, but it does depend on the controller & driver more than the individual disk.

Most likely, d'peg is using the CPU for more than just disk access, hence the CPU usage. If you want a more specific answer, you're better off posting your question in the computing forum.

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