A great buy, now that they have released them...
Iv got 2 of the 80GB big brothers strapped to my raid card on Raid Striping 0, max speed i recorded with a test program was 73MB/sec, which is amazing compared to my 80GB IBM which gives max at 52MB/sec.
Iv got 2 of the 80GB big brothers strapped to my raid card on Raid Striping 0, max speed i recorded with a test program was 73MB/sec, which is amazing compared to my 80GB IBM which gives max at 52MB/sec. I was completely 8) shocked at the difference in speed
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
Quote: http://www.xtrememods.com/reviews/?id=6
(From today's front page news 12/30/2002 here @ NTCompatible.com)
Western Digital JB series 40gb Caviar SE 8mb Buffer EIDE 7200rpm ATA-100 model disks...
* Fast & GREAT prices no doubt!
(I've got the 120gb JB SE Caviar, & they are FAST DISKS & pretty much same as this & it's 60, 80, & 100gb brethren, fastest on EIDE/IDE market now pretty much!!! I did not count in the WD 200gb because I believe it is SATA type...)
APK
P.S.=> I know the 80gb big brother of this drive sells for $80 after rebate... so this one at 1/2 it's size has GOTTA be a "fantastic" price, & I'd guess around $65 - $75 per drive... great deal! apk
I agree with you about the WD JB series of disks. I have (2) 80s and they really scream, but, the prices that I see for the 40s on pricewatch, would still make me go for the 80s as a best buy.
Western Digital JB series (includes shipping)
40GB $96.90
60GB $106.00
80GB $125.80
(From today's front page news 12/30/2002 here @ NTCompatible.com)
Western Digital JB series 40gb Caviar SE 8mb Buffer EIDE 7200rpm ATA-100 model disks...
* Fast & GREAT prices no doubt!
(I've got the 120gb JB SE Caviar, & they are FAST DISKS & pretty much same as this & it's 60, 80, & 100gb brethren, fastest on EIDE/IDE market now pretty much!!! I did not count in the WD 200gb because I believe it is SATA type...)
APK
P.S.=> I know the 80gb big brother of this drive sells for $80 after rebate... so this one at 1/2 it's size has GOTTA be a "fantastic" price, & I'd guess around $65 - $75 per drive... great deal! apk
I agree with you about the WD JB series of disks. I have (2) 80s and they really scream, but, the prices that I see for the 40s on pricewatch, would still make me go for the 80s as a best buy.
Western Digital JB series (includes shipping)
40GB $96.90
60GB $106.00
80GB $125.80
Quote:Quote:Iv got 2 of the 80GB big brothers strapped to my raid card on Raid Striping 0, max speed i recorded with a test program was 73MB/sec, which is amazing compared to my 80GB IBM which gives max at 52MB/sec. I was completely 8) shocked at the difference in speed
Hey, that's great... especially in RAID 0 stripe array!
Why do I say that? Well... I read up at www.storagereview.com about how the new JB/SE Caviar series with 8mb buffer on them (40/60/80/100/120/200 SATA) types were not doing better in RAID 0 array stripes than they did standalone operating independently!
Yet your results disprove it apparently, because IBM disks are NOT pokes & tend to run pretty close to WD of any type, including the SE/JB 8mb buffered series... not REAL close, but closer than your results show!
(And, That makes sense... if you think about it.)
* That could just be a matter of possibly storagereview's testing software's data sets read/written/copy/move during the test... e.g.-> Their testing software's NOT using over a 24mb dataset size & never leaves their pooled onboard cache (assuming the RAID 0 controller firmware pools it, & I'd wager it would) & thus, a single disk might show testing as well as the same type of disk in a 2-4 disk logical RAID 0 logical disk entity under a test).
(I would figure that 3 of those drives with 24mb of onboard cache between them would show as doing great, & better than most disks would, and better working together as one logical disk unit under a RAID 0 array stripe! StorageReview's tests did not show that, & personally I suspect it's just the testing software's methodology & datasets used...)
APK
P.S.=> Anyhow: They're a GREAT buy at the 80gb size @ $80 U.S. Dollars or so... I am guessing this 40gb size would run $60 TOPS, if not less at $50 U.S. Dollars, or so...
Personally though? One day, I'd like to return to the UltraScSi-III world, but in UltraScSi-160 next round & snag a pair of Seagate Cheetah's pushing 15,000rpm & 3.6ms seek times... NOW THAT IS FAST! Costly, but fast... next choice'd be Maxtor/Quantum Atlas 10k III units! apk
My IBM hdd is running alone on IDE channel 2 of the controller so i dont know if it will make any difference in speed to it being with another 1 of its brothers on the same channel
Hey, that's great... especially in RAID 0 stripe array!
Why do I say that? Well... I read up at www.storagereview.com about how the new JB/SE Caviar series with 8mb buffer on them (40/60/80/100/120/200 SATA) types were not doing better in RAID 0 array stripes than they did standalone operating independently!
Yet your results disprove it apparently, because IBM disks are NOT pokes & tend to run pretty close to WD of any type, including the SE/JB 8mb buffered series... not REAL close, but closer than your results show!
(And, That makes sense... if you think about it.)
* That could just be a matter of possibly storagereview's testing software's data sets read/written/copy/move during the test... e.g.-> Their testing software's NOT using over a 24mb dataset size & never leaves their pooled onboard cache (assuming the RAID 0 controller firmware pools it, & I'd wager it would) & thus, a single disk might show testing as well as the same type of disk in a 2-4 disk logical RAID 0 logical disk entity under a test).
(I would figure that 3 of those drives with 24mb of onboard cache between them would show as doing great, & better than most disks would, and better working together as one logical disk unit under a RAID 0 array stripe! StorageReview's tests did not show that, & personally I suspect it's just the testing software's methodology & datasets used...)
APK
P.S.=> Anyhow: They're a GREAT buy at the 80gb size @ $80 U.S. Dollars or so... I am guessing this 40gb size would run $60 TOPS, if not less at $50 U.S. Dollars, or so...
Personally though? One day, I'd like to return to the UltraScSi-III world, but in UltraScSi-160 next round & snag a pair of Seagate Cheetah's pushing 15,000rpm & 3.6ms seek times... NOW THAT IS FAST! Costly, but fast... next choice'd be Maxtor/Quantum Atlas 10k III units! apk
My IBM hdd is running alone on IDE channel 2 of the controller so i dont know if it will make any difference in speed to it being with another 1 of its brothers on the same channel
Quote:Quote:My IBM hdd is running alone on IDE channel 2 of the controller so i dont know if it will make any difference in speed to it being with another 1 of its brothers on the same channel
Sometimes, I have heard that IDE channel #2 is slower than IDE channel #1, but I think that is a rarity really, at least the last few years now (like last 4-5 years now).
I think that your WD disks gave a HECK of a show really, nearly doubling your lone wolf IBM disk there (but, you had those WD SE/JB Caviars with 8mb caches on them acting as a RAID 0 array stripe, correct?).
(I can see them beating it alone, but the margin you are showing of nearly doubling the throughput of that lone IBM, makes sense that WD's new 8mb buffered series disks work well in RAID 0 & DO increase their speed acting pooled like that!)
* What I meant was at some reviews of WD's new JB/SE caviar 8mb series said they did not seem to aid speed in RAID 0 setups... your test I would wager shows diff. from its results & the tests I am referring to, iirc, came from around the time of the 100mb SE/JB 8mb series of 8mb onboard cache carrying WD disks!
APK
Yes the WD's are in RAID 0 Array, i havent tested them or used them at all on the motherboard alone but i may do so sometime and see how they perform.
Sometimes, I have heard that IDE channel #2 is slower than IDE channel #1, but I think that is a rarity really, at least the last few years now (like last 4-5 years now).
I think that your WD disks gave a HECK of a show really, nearly doubling your lone wolf IBM disk there (but, you had those WD SE/JB Caviars with 8mb caches on them acting as a RAID 0 array stripe, correct?).
(I can see them beating it alone, but the margin you are showing of nearly doubling the throughput of that lone IBM, makes sense that WD's new 8mb buffered series disks work well in RAID 0 & DO increase their speed acting pooled like that!)
* What I meant was at some reviews of WD's new JB/SE caviar 8mb series said they did not seem to aid speed in RAID 0 setups... your test I would wager shows diff. from its results & the tests I am referring to, iirc, came from around the time of the 100mb SE/JB 8mb series of 8mb onboard cache carrying WD disks!
APK
Yes the WD's are in RAID 0 Array, i havent tested them or used them at all on the motherboard alone but i may do so sometime and see how they perform.
yepeprs , grabbed one of their 120g 8mb drives back in Jan for an ftp - runs like a ferrari!
