WD2000JB & WD2000BB results in SR's database

[CougTek]

Fastest drive ever under Business WB 99. Impressive transfer rates (56MB/s beginning, 33MB/s end), but access time is poor. That's probably because of the very high platter density though. The bootup and high-end benchmarks are exceptional too for an ATA hard drive, but the web server result is weak.

Bottom line : A great desktop or workstation drive, but avoid it inside anything related to a server. That's true for most IDE drives, but it is even more for this one.

I was commenting the JB BTW. I don't really care for the 1-year-warranty BB. The bad side of this drive is its selling price. It's almost SCSI-like. I'm eager to see what kind of results Maxtor's MaxLine II Plus and IBM's Deskstar 180GXP will deliver. Both should at least be better regarding the access time.

 

[blakerwry]

Might as well just stick to the 1200bb/jb's in my opinion. I hope the 180GXP will be impressive, hopefully not another dud.

 

[NRG = mc²]

The bad side of this drive is its selling price. It's almost SCSI-like

True, its expensive but much cheaper than a 200Gb SCSI drive...

 

[Prof.Wizard]

Bottom line : A great desktop or workstation drive, but avoid it inside anything related to a server. That's true for most IDE drives, but it is even more for this one.

Noise?

 

[P5-133XL]

I just looked at the database comparing the WD1200JB with the WD2000JB and I don't understand the results. Specificly the 2000 is 1.3ms slower in its access speed. However, the only signifigent performance drawbacks are with the web content tests.

When I analyze the drive data it indicates that the access time should be decreasing all the results more than the increase in STR (of aprox 16%) improves them. Especially with the file server tests that are doing lots of ransom seeks. No matter how much STR improves, there are always slowdowns on seek dependant benchmarks. But that is not the case with the data.

The only conclusion that I can come up with that would explain the results would be a drasticly improved caching algorithum in the WD2000 or the access times are just plain wrong. However, then why is the web content benchmarks so bad compared to the WD1200?