My review of Western Digital 320GB RE3 and 2 in raid0 :)

clocka · 28 Aug 2008 at 13:08

they are very quiet, no clunking, slight high pitch sound instead when transferring data, i thought my 7500AAKS drives were fairly quiet, i was wrong

cost me £93 after 10% discount code on ocuk for the 320gb's. The 250gb's are a bit cheaper if you dont need the storage.

Atom · 28 Aug 2008 at 14:25

If you were to get 2 of these and raid0 with the partition size say, 20gb (os) which would be 10gb for each drive. Am I right in thinking you would get good seek speeds with that setup due to the small distance the heads have to move?

HEADRAT · 28 Aug 2008 at 15:03

Here are my two 320 RE3 in RAID0

wonder why yours are quicker

clocka said:
HD Tach 3.0.4.0:

HEADRAT

clocka · 28 Aug 2008 at 16:08

mine was done in XP not vista, i used latest sata raid drivers and latest chipset drivers too. There is only 5mb/s difference in raid0 thats nothing.

750GB + 1TB RE3 drives are coming out now too: http://www.westerndigital.com/en/co...elease={5896916E-1B47-46F5-9B00-1499B35BA757}

Here is some info about what these RE3 drives have over normal drives:

WD RE3 Features:

* StableTrac™ - The motor shaft is secured at both ends to reduce system-induced vibration and stabilize platters for accurate tracking during read and write operations. Visit the Web site at http://www.wdc.com/global/flash/index.asp?family=stabletrac to see StableTrac in action.
* Dual processor - Twice the processing power that results in a 20 percent performance improvement over the previous generation.
* RAFF™ technology - Resulting in up to 60 percent performance improvement over previous generation drives, WD's fourth-generation RAFF technology includes sophisticated electronics to monitor the drive and correct both linear and rotational vibration simultaneously in real time for maximum performance in high vibration environments.
* IntelliSeek™ technology - Calculates optimum seek speeds to lower power consumption, noise, and vibration in active seek modes without degrading performance.
* Multi-axis shock sensor - An additional third sensor has been added to RE3 models to detect automatically the subtlest shock events and to compensate to protect the data.
* RAID-specific, Time-Limited Error Recovery (TLER) - Prevents drive fallout caused by the extended hard drive error-recovery processes common to desktop drives.
* Third-generation dynamic fly height - With this next generation dynamic fly height technology, each read-write head's fly height is adjusted in real time for optimum reliability.
* Thermal extended burn-in test - Extended burn-in testing with thermal cycling added to ensure only the most robust drives are produced as RAID Edition.
* NoTouch™ ramp load technology - The recording head never touches the disk media ensuring significantly less wear to the recording head and media as well as better drive protection in transit.

Iraklis F.C. · 29 Aug 2008 at 13:29

Stonedofmoo said:
Because that is their single advantage, and it's really hard to justify their price for such a small advantage in that area, when for half the price I've built a RAID 0 array that smashes the Raptors and VRaptors in outright transfer rates.

I've done a lot of thinking about all this lately and the only thing I was able to conclude was that investing in expensive hard disk setups right now is a bit foolish with the advancements in SSD's every single week. In a year from now a SSD is almost certain to be available that will smash the VRaptors on access time and performance, equal them in capacity and match them on price. Is it worth investing so much on 10k SATA or 15k SAS drives just now knowing this?

I decided it wasn't and just bought a simple but fast array that made use of my onboard raid and was very cheap - £130 odd!

Random access is what you should be aiming for in drives that host OS'es

Stonedofmoo · 29 Aug 2008 at 15:23

Vista now loads and reacts faster with the RE3 array so it obviously doesn't make that big a difference. I have plenty of RAM so it's not hitting the page file much.

clocka · 29 Aug 2008 at 17:01

Stonedofmoo said:
Vista now loads and reacts faster with the RE3 array so it obviously doesn't make that big a difference

confused by this... if it loads and reacts faster then how can it not make that big a difference?

Stonedofmoo · 29 Aug 2008 at 17:13

Ah I meant in relation to the post below.

Iraklis F.C. said:
Random access is what you should be aiming for in drives that host OS'es

Atom · 29 Aug 2008 at 19:12

clocka said:
mine was done in XP not vista, i used latest sata raid drivers and latest chipset drivers too. There is only 5mb/s difference in raid0 thats nothing.

750GB + 1TB RE3 drives are coming out now too: http://www.westerndigital.com/en/co...elease={5896916E-1B47-46F5-9B00-1499B35BA757}

Here is some info about what these RE3 drives have over normal drives:

WD RE3 Features:

* StableTrac™ - The motor shaft is secured at both ends to reduce system-induced vibration and stabilize platters for accurate tracking during read and write operations. Visit the Web site at http://www.wdc.com/global/flash/index.asp?family=stabletrac to see StableTrac in action.
* Dual processor - Twice the processing power that results in a 20 percent performance improvement over the previous generation.
* RAFF™ technology - Resulting in up to 60 percent performance improvement over previous generation drives, WD's fourth-generation RAFF technology includes sophisticated electronics to monitor the drive and correct both linear and rotational vibration simultaneously in real time for maximum performance in high vibration environments.
* IntelliSeek™ technology - Calculates optimum seek speeds to lower power consumption, noise, and vibration in active seek modes without degrading performance.
* Multi-axis shock sensor - An additional third sensor has been added to RE3 models to detect automatically the subtlest shock events and to compensate to protect the data.
* RAID-specific, Time-Limited Error Recovery (TLER) - Prevents drive fallout caused by the extended hard drive error-recovery processes common to desktop drives.
* Third-generation dynamic fly height - With this next generation dynamic fly height technology, each read-write head's fly height is adjusted in real time for optimum reliability.
* Thermal extended burn-in test - Extended burn-in testing with thermal cycling added to ensure only the most robust drives are produced as RAID Edition.
* NoTouch™ ramp load technology - The recording head never touches the disk media ensuring significantly less wear to the recording head and media as well as better drive protection in transit.

These drives seem to have a lot of the features the green power drives except for the difference in spindle speed. I might get 2 of these instead of a 500gb green power for my htpc.

HEADRAT · 29 Aug 2008 at 19:17

Kinda wished I had 3 x 250GB now, hmmmm!

Stonedofmoo · 29 Aug 2008 at 20:27

HEADRAT said:
Kinda wished I had 3 x 250GB now, hmmmm!

It's damn quick!

The RE3 250Gb drive has the 320Gb platter but short stroked to 250gb so unless you need more space it's faster performance across the whole array for less money. You cannot go wrong!

I'm really pleased with the result and plan on holding onto this setup until SSD's are a more reasonable price for their sizes.

ps3ud0 · 31 Aug 2008 at 00:16

You bugger Stonedofmoo - I think youve upsold me to 2x250Gb - definitely a bonus regards the shortstroked platter...

ps3ud0 :cool:

Yemster41 · 1 Sep 2008 at 14:32

Stonedofmoo said:
Because that is their single advantage, and it's really hard to justify their price for such a small advantage in that area, when for half the price I've built a RAID 0 array that smashes the Raptors and VRaptors in outright transfer rates.

I've done a lot of thinking about all this lately and the only thing I was able to conclude was that investing in expensive hard disk setups right now is a bit foolish with the advancements in SSD's every single week. In a year from now a SSD is almost certain to be available that will smash the VRaptors on access time and performance, equal them in capacity and match them on price. Is it worth investing so much on 10k SATA or 15k SAS drives just now knowing this?

I decided it wasn't and just bought a simple but fast array that made use of my onboard raid and was very cheap - £130 odd!

One thing to note:-
All SSD vs. VelociRaptor (VR) tests are not apples against apples in comparison. The VR is at 300GB; the available SSD today are mainly much smaller.

IF you take a 300GB VR and ONLY partition it to (leaving the unpartitioned portion of the drive un-touched):

- 300GB (full partition for example only) = access time of 4.2ms

- 150GB = access time of 2.1ms (meaning half of the drive is not used)

- 75GB = access time of 1.05ms

- 36GB = access time of .57ms

When you partition only a portion of the drive, the drive will always partition the outer portion (or fastest portion) of the platter first.

Now, if we were to take a VR with 64GB vs. an SSD of 64GB. You will see a completely different outcome.

So with the above analogy, when SSD gets to 300GB, it will be slower too.

People will say “why would I pay for a 300GB VR and only use a portion of it”. Well, if some one is willing to buy SSD today, the 300GB VR is still A LOT cheaper, and if partitioned properly, faster.

bledd · 1 Sep 2008 at 14:41

Yemster41 said:
IF you take a 300GB VR and ONLY partition it to (leaving the unpartitioned portion of the drive un-touched):

- 300GB (full partition for example only) = access time of 4.2ms

- 150GB = access time of 2.1ms (meaning half of the drive is not used)

- 75GB = access time of 1.05ms

- 36GB = access time of .57ms

When you partition only a portion of the drive, the drive will always partition the outer portion (or fastest portion) of the platter first.

did not know that!

can someone do some tests

John24 · 1 Sep 2008 at 15:05

Yemster41 said:
when SSD gets to 300GB, it will be slower too.

That`s completely untrue.

As for your access time claims, they should be faster by shortstroking but as fast as you claim... I`ll beleive it when I see it.

cotton_flex · 2 Sep 2008 at 12:53

Yemster41 said:
One thing to note:-
All SSD vs. VelociRaptor (VR) tests are not apples against apples in comparison. The VR is at 300GB; the available SSD today are mainly much smaller.

IF you take a 300GB VR and ONLY partition it to (leaving the unpartitioned portion of the drive un-touched):

- 300GB (full partition for example only) = access time of 4.2ms

- 150GB = access time of 2.1ms (meaning half of the drive is not used)

- 75GB = access time of 1.05ms

- 36GB = access time of .57ms

When you partition only a portion of the drive, the drive will always partition the outer portion (or fastest portion) of the platter first.

Now, if we were to take a VR with 64GB vs. an SSD of 64GB. You will see a completely different outcome.

So with the above analogy, when SSD gets to 300GB, it will be slower too.

People will say “why would I pay for a 300GB VR and only use a portion of it”. Well, if some one is willing to buy SSD today, the 300GB VR is still A LOT cheaper, and if partitioned properly, faster.

This is very interesting. Has anyone got any tests or benchies that can back this up?

Stonedofmoo · 2 Sep 2008 at 12:59

No because it's not true. He's confusing access time with seek time.

Access time is the time it takes for data to arrive from the moment the request is made, to delivery time and that includes the time it takes the process the command. The seek time is only one part of that process.

londonbairn · 2 Sep 2008 at 14:23

Thank you for this insight, I will be getting 2 of these for my main drive

ByteJuggler · 2 Sep 2008 at 17:20

Stonedofmoo said:
No because it's not true. He's confusing access time with seek time.

Access time is the time it takes for data to arrive from the moment the request is made, to delivery time and that includes the time it takes the process the command. The seek time is only one part of that process.

Yes. Although the higher the seek time, the higher the access time, so the two are correlated. Neverhteless and as pointed out above, the seek time is only one part of the access time -- there's *also* rotational delay which forms a substantal part of the access time on a conventional hard disk. And this very much depends on the rotational speed of the disk, and it furthermore remains constant (or approximately so) regardless of the size of the partition or the distance the head has to seek. Which is why you can't do the math like the previous poster stated. The rotational delay on a VR is what it is for all 10,000RPM disks, whereas there is no rotational delay on SSD's...

That makes a big difference.

londonbairn · 5 Sep 2008 at 21:02

Ordered 2 of these today, are they definately one platter drives?