Whats the fastest SATA 250 GB HDD out there.

[Shenkoa]

What is the fastest 250 GB SATA drive out there thats not Maxtor. I just had 2 DOA's in a row of the Maxline 3 250's so thats out of the question.

I was thinking about the WDSE16. Any suggestions?

 

[ribbon13]

Lol. Can't afford to bump to the RE2? WD4000YR? It's also designed for near-line enterprise storage, and has the expected performance and reliability for the job. Mass benchmark ownage

The SE16? lol. Why the call a it a 'series' when its just the $134 - WD2500KS

 

[Zepper]

Why are we talking 400GB drives when he wants a 250? Go to StorageReview.com, sign up, and you can compare the recent tests of 250GB models and check the reliablity database too - speed isn't the be all/end all. Hitachi usuually does very well in that range and Samsung doesn't do badly and is tres quiet.

.bh.

 

[hans007]

t7k250 is supposed to be pretty fast. very fast access times for 7200rpm.

 

[Spike]

Originally posted by: ribbon13
Lol. Can't afford to bump to the RE2? WD4000YR? It's also designed for near-line enterprise storage, and has the expected performance and reliability for the job. Mass benchmark ownage

The SE16? lol. Why the call a it a 'series' when its just the $134 - WD2500KS

Really stupid question here... is there any reason why a RE WD drive would have issues running as a single drive instead of in a RAID array? I assume not but as I am interested in one of those 400gb as my game/power app drives I want to make sure it will work well.

-spike

 

[ribbon13]

Originally posted by: Spike
Really stupid question here... is there any reason why a RE WD drive would have issues running as a single drive instead of in a RAID array? I assume not but as I am interested in one of those 400gb as my game/power app drives I want to make sure it will work well.

-spike

None whatsoever. This would seem obvious, because if those benchmarks were RAID arrays, it would say so.

They may suggest that running the RE2 model on a desktop is unwise, and there has been discussion on that topic.

 

[daniel1113]

I have 5 MaxLine III drives and wouldn't trade them for anything.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: Zepper
Why are we talking 400GB drives when he wants a 250? Go to StorageReview.com, sign up, and you can compare the recent tests of 250GB models and check the reliablity database too - speed isn't the be all/end all. Hitachi usuually does very well in that range and Samsung doesn't do badly and is tres quiet.

.bh.

I second Hitachi, they are amost always at the top of most benchmarks. T7k250 is a great performer.

 

[SnoMunke]

I have 6 Hitachi drives in RAID array...good enough for me...

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
I have 5 MaxLine III drives and wouldn't trade them for anything.

not for 5 147gb 15k rpm scsi drives?

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Mik3y

Originally posted by: daniel1113
I have 5 MaxLine III drives and wouldn't trade them for anything.

not for 5 147gb 15k rpm scsi drives?

Nope.

More noise + More heat + Less storage space.

They wouldn't help me at all.

 

[otherwise]

Originally posted by: ribbon13

Originally posted by: Spike
Really stupid question here... is there any reason why a RE WD drive would have issues running as a single drive instead of in a RAID array? I assume not but as I am interested in one of those 400gb as my game/power app drives I want to make sure it will work well.

-spike

None whatsoever. This would seem obvious, because if those benchmarks were RAID arrays, it would say so.

Yes there is actuially. This drive is designed so that it automatically aborts all operations after 8 seconds in the case of an error. Forgot what they called this feature, but it can get in the way of recovery of certain problems if your drive dies on you.

Theoritically this should be able to be turned off by simply flashing the drive, but noone has produced said program yet.

 

[ribbon13]

3. Finally, the RE2, living up to its moniker, ships with the firm?s ?Time Limited Error Recovery? (TLER) feature enabled while the SE16 does not. This oft-confusing feature permits a drive to gracefully surrender error recovery features after an 8-second window of attempts rather than stubbornly continuing onwards with the assumption that an array?s redundancy features will cover the error and avoid data corruption. For drives that find themselves in a setup that features redundancy (anything other than RAID 0), this is a plus. For disks that don?t, it?s not.

Basically it will spend less time trying to recover the error expecting that your fault-tolerant RAID will make up for it. And if your drive takes 8 seconds to recover an error, theres nothing this feature or lack there-of is going to do for you anyway.