Western Digital 320Gb hard drives?

  • Thread starter Thread starter A. J. Moss
  • Start date Start date
A

A. J. Moss

Western Digital WD3200JB (8M cache, but not the fancy RAID edition.)

Has anyone tried these? Can anyone comment on their reliability?

They cost about the same as a 300Gb drive (from any manufacturer),
and, all other things being equal, the extra 20Gb is worth having.
 
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage A. J. Moss said:
Western Digital WD3200JB (8M cache, but not the fancy RAID edition.)
Click to expand...
Has anyone tried these? Can anyone comment on their reliability?
Click to expand...

They are a bit too new for that. Ask again in 2 years or so.
They cost about the same as a 300Gb drive (from any manufacturer),
and, all other things being equal, the extra 20Gb is worth having.
Click to expand...

My impression is that generally WD is in the lower area of the
reliability scale, so the 20GB might be very expensive. Better get a
300GB Seagate.

Arno
 
Arno said:
They are a bit too new for that. Ask again in 2 years or so.


My impression is that generally WD is in the lower area of the
reliability scale, so the 20GB might be very expensive. Better get a
300GB Seagate.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

Odie
 
Absolutely.
Click to expand...

How about this Maxtor DiamondMax 10 300GB

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822144421&CMP=BAC-dealmac

This is for a user PC, not a server.



--
Matt Silberstein


And now our bodies are oh so close and tight
It never felt so good, it never felt so right
And we're glowing like the metal on the edge of a knife
C'mon! Hold on tight!
C'mon! Hold on tight!

Though it's cold and lonley in the deep dark night
I can see paradise by the dashboard light
Paradise by the dashboard light

Jim Steinman
 
I would rate the Western Digitals as 2nd best in reliability, Seagate as
number one.
I would assume that the 320GB is the exact same as the older 200GB and 250GB
models.
The 320 is just using newer platters that hold more data (3 platters, about
107GB per platter).
The 250GB would be storing about 84GB per platter.
The 200 would be storing about 67GB per platter, but is or will be
superseded to two 100GB platters.
Western Digital never uses more then 3 platters in a hard drive for
reliability reasons.
Other manufacturers have as many as 5 platters per hard drive.
That is how they can sell HDs with 400GB or 500GB of storage.
My current Western Digital WD200JB has be running for days on end almost
none stop.
 
Seagate's do come with a five year warranty.

Arno Wagner said:
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage A. J. Moss



They are a bit too new for that. Ask again in 2 years or so.


My impression is that generally WD is in the lower area of the
reliability scale, so the 20GB might be very expensive. Better get a
300GB Seagate.

Arno
Click to expand...
 
tod said:
I would rate the Western Digitals as 2nd best in reliability, Seagate as
number one.
I would assume that the 320GB is the exact same as the older 200GB and
250GB models.
The 320 is just using newer platters that hold more data (3 platters,
about 107GB per platter).
The 250GB would be storing about 84GB per platter.
The 200 would be storing about 67GB per platter, but is or will be
superseded to two 100GB platters.
Western Digital never uses more then 3 platters in a hard drive for
reliability reasons.
Other manufacturers have as many as 5 platters per hard drive.
That is how they can sell HDs with 400GB or 500GB of storage.
My current Western Digital WD200JB has be running for days on end almost
none stop.
Click to expand...

All of my drives have been running continuously for years except the ones in
my laptops. "Days on end" is not any kind of test. I'm not sure that I
have any from Western Digital at the moment.
 
tod said:
I would rate the Western Digitals as 2nd best in reliability,
Click to expand...

More fool you. They're actually 4th or 5th.
Seagate as number one.
Nope.

I would assume that the 320GB is the exact same as the older 200GB and 250GB
models.
The 320 is just using newer platters that hold more data (3 platters, about
107GB per platter).
The 250GB would be storing about 84GB per platter.
The 200 would be storing about 67GB per platter, but is or will be superseded
to two 100GB platters.
Click to expand...
Western Digital never uses more then 3 platters in a hard drive for
reliability reasons.
Click to expand...

And are currently getting lousy reliability anyway.
Other manufacturers have as many as 5 platters per hard drive.
That is how they can sell HDs with 400GB or 500GB of storage.
Click to expand...
My current Western Digital WD200JB has be running for days on end almost none
stop.
Click to expand...

The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'
 
tod said:
I would rate the Western Digitals as 2nd best in reliability, Seagate as
number one.
I would assume that the 320GB is the exact same as the older 200GB and
250GB models.
The 320 is just using newer platters that hold more data (3 platters,
about 107GB per platter).
The 250GB would be storing about 84GB per platter.
The 200 would be storing about 67GB per platter, but is or will be
superseded to two 100GB platters.
Western Digital never uses more then 3 platters in a hard drive for
reliability reasons.
Click to expand...

Ahem .... methinks you sprout unjustified rubbish sir.
http://www.wdc.com/en/products/Products.asp?DriveID=158

http://www.storagereview.com/ is always a good site to consult when
validating and evaluating a new drive, but don't take everything they say at
100% face value.
 
My current Western Digital WD200JB has be running for days on end almost
none stop.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I have to giggle about that - despite the reliability
concerns expressed here, I use WD 'JB' drives exclusively and have
never had one fail. My server currently has 2x300, 2x160 and 2x120
'JB' drives in it and it is permanently on. The 120's are the oldest
and have been running non-stop for over 2.5 years without a glitch.
 
Some terminal ****wit desperately cowering behind
puerile shit thats all it can ever manage.
 
Simon said:
Sorry but I have to giggle about that - despite the reliability
concerns expressed here, I use WD 'JB' drives exclusively and have
never had one fail. My server currently has 2x300, 2x160 and 2x120
'JB' drives in it and it is permanently on. The 120's are the oldest
and have been running non-stop for over 2.5 years without a glitch.
Click to expand...

I've got some, too, and never had a problem.

Perhaps it's just the luck of the draw, but I can't help think that
some of the people who complain about drives have abused them (e.g
run them too hot).
 
Some terminal ****wit desperately cowering behind
puerile shit thats all it can ever manage.
 
Back
Top