there is a 7.200rpm speedier than Wd800jb??

Hello to all!
Exist an hd (7.200rpm 8mb cache, eide) more performant than WD800jb??
in every case...the new wd of same series but just of 100 or 120gb...are
more performant that this????

Thanks much!

Best greetings!




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Danzig Glenn wrote in message news:02f2e205dd25acd774e3ee75acafbcd7.74207@mygate .mailgate.org...

Exist an hd (7.200rpm 8mb cache, eide) more performant than WD800jb??

Its possible to claim that the Hitachi IC35L090AVV207 180GXP drive
does perform a bit better in SOME situations, but there isnt much in it.

in every case...

Nope.

the new wd of same series but just of 100 or 120gb...
are more performant that this????

Yes, in some situations.

storagereview.com has some pretty decent tests of those drives.

If you believe

http://www.storagereview.com

the larger drives in the series are faster than the 80 GB version, which
must mean that the larger drives have higher-density platters.

If you can use a serial ATA drive, you could consider the Western Digital
Raptor drive - it's the first 10,000 RPM ATA drive - but it is only 36 BG in
size. You can buy a 120 GB parallel AT drive with an 8 MB cache for less
money, and (due to the higher platter density) it won't be that much slower
at 7200 RPM.

HTH.

Bob Knowlden

Spam dodger may be in use. Replace nkbob with bobkn.

"Danzig Glenn" wrote in message
news:02f2e205dd25acd774e3ee75acafbcd7.74207@mygate .mailgate.org...
Hello to all!
Exist an hd (7.200rpm 8mb cache, eide) more performant than WD800jb??
in every case...the new wd of same series but just of 100 or 120gb...are
more performant that this????

Thanks much!

Best greetings!




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Bob Knowlden" wrote in message ...
If you believe

http://www.storagereview.com

the larger drives in the series are faster than the 80 GB version, which
must mean that the larger drives have higher-density platters.

Or in other words, the 80GB drive is not from the same series as the bigger
drives. Some of them are though.


If you can use a serial ATA drive, you could consider the Western Digital
Raptor drive - it's the first 10,000 RPM ATA drive - but it is only 36 BG in
size. You can buy a 120 GB parallel AT drive with an 8 MB cache for less
money, and (due to the higher platter density) it won't be that much slower
at 7200 RPM.

Depends what type of use you have for them.
Better access time can make-up for sustained transfer rate and vice versa.


HTH.

Bob Knowlden

Spam dodger may be in use. Replace nkbob with bobkn.

"Danzig Glenn" wrote in message news:02f2e205dd25acd774e3ee75acafbcd7.74207@mygate .mailgate.org...
Hello to all!
Exist an hd (7.200rpm 8mb cache, eide) more performant than WD800jb??
in every case...the new wd of same series but just of 100 or 120gb...are
more performant that this????

Thanks much!

Best greetings!




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Bob Knowlden" wrote in message ...
If you believe

http://www.storagereview.com

the larger drives in the series are faster than the 80 GB version, which
must mean that the larger drives have higher-density platters.

If you can use a serial ATA drive, you could consider the Western Digital
Raptor drive - it's the first 10,000 RPM ATA drive - but it is only 36 BG in
size. You can buy a 120 GB parallel AT drive with an 8 MB cache for less
money, and (due to the higher platter density) it won't be that much slower
at 7200 RPM.

HTH.

Bob Knowlden

Most new drives IMO are good in reguards to speed. The reason I got
the raptor had more to do with access time. Drives with low access
time feel much faster to me. If I were wanting to spend another $200
I would have got a SCSI controller and a 36GB 15,000 RPM drive
Spending $139 on the raptor was a much better deal.

Eric

thanks much to all for the answer!

i was asking this...'cause really i have one of they (but don't know
really how fast is cause i have broke the mobo of my pc...and for now,
in the wait of choose entirely a new mobo and processor, i have a
fu****g with controller udma33 (at top!:/) )
....and in the case i need i can use it in raid! (i don't say this why
i want to have a raid with this hd...but i say this cause i like the hd
i have...and if is so i can do a raid with two of these....)

the mine it's good queite ...but some other tell that it's a little
noisy
(so i don't know if i have the one more luckly...and if i buy another i
will one of the noisy..as had write much other people...)

it's for this that i don't know exactly what to do

but if other eide drive are much faster wihout noisy...i will take other
drive
('another cause it's that today the wd120jb for example have a better
gb/price than 80jb.. )



Hello!

(for the other drive, cause is for another kind of use..i have just
opened another 3d)


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Folkert Rienstra" wrote in message ...
"Bob Knowlden" wrote in message ...
If you believe

http://www.storagereview.com

the larger drives in the series are faster than the 80 GB version, which
must mean that the larger drives have higher-density platters.

Or in other words, the 80GB drive is not from the same series as the bigger
drives. Some of them are though.


If you can use a serial ATA drive, you could consider the Western Digital
Raptor drive - it's the first 10,000 RPM ATA drive - but it is only 36 BG in
size. You can buy a 120 GB parallel AT drive with an 8 MB cache for less
money, and (due to the higher platter density) it won't be that much slower
at 7200 RPM.

Depends what type of use you have for them.
Better access time can make-up for sustained transfer rate and vice versa.


Better access time and faster. Doesn't the 120GB drive only have 40GB
platters anyway? That is not going to make up for a whole lot. The
only drives I see getting close are the 200-250GB drives coming out.
Still slightly slower with higher access time. The raptor makes a
great OS drive. Lots of tiny files that depend more on access time
than raw speed. Compare the boot times with the raptor with the newer
drives even. I've seen people do a complete boot in about 12 seconds
with that drive. IMO it just feels faster as well.

Eric

"Eric Witte" wrote in message
om...


Doesn't the 120GB drive only have 40GB platters anyway?

The newer 1200JB's use 2x60gig platters according to some posts I've seen.
Apparently the 120 gig JB's with 2x60 instead of 3x40 are identified by
having DU in the 6 digit model number ie xxDUxx indicates 60 gig platters as
does an LBA of 234441648

On 15 Jul 2003 05:29:37 -0700
(Eric Witte) wrote:

Better access time and faster. Doesn't the 120GB drive only have
40GB platters anyway? That is not going to make up for a whole
lot. The only drives I see getting close are the 200-250GB drives
coming out. Still slightly slower with higher access time. The
raptor makes a great OS drive. Lots of tiny files that depend
more on access time than raw speed. Compare the boot times with
the raptor with the newer drives even. I've seen people do a
complete boot in about 12 seconds with that drive. IMO it just
feels faster as well.

It'd be interesting to see if you could actually pick between
two otherwise identical systems in a proper double blind
trial with the raptor as the OS drive. I doubt it myself.

I can feel it with SCSI.

In a double-blind test?

Eric


--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On 15 Jul 2003 09:26:12 -0700
(Eric Witte) wrote:

It'd be interesting to see if you could actually pick between
two otherwise identical systems in a proper double blind
trial with the raptor as the OS drive. I doubt it myself.

I can feel it with SCSI.

In a double-blind test?


I could if I had too. Although it really depends. If you give me
some crappy older 7200rpm 40MB/s SCSI drive probably not. If I'm
comparing even an IBM 180 with a 10 or 15k Cheetah I could.

Don't be too sure of what you can do in a double-blind test. One of
John Scully's most embarassing moments was when he, while CEO of Pepsi,
chose Coca-Cola in a blind tasting.

Eric


--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)