WD6400AAKS vs WD6401AALS

[nkresho]

^ Me neither, what gives guys, what is the secret?

I just raided my two 6401aals and i'm getting similar numbers to^. Where's the 4000 burst rate?

 

[raisethe3]

^^^So you guys saying, the WD Caviar Black 1 TB is also good preformance/ noiseless wise?

 

[dja2k]

nice speed dja2k

I keep it enabled 24/7/365 .. btw, nice results

A bit late on the response but thanks guys! I did see a small decrease once the drives started filling up with data but that is normal.

dja2k

 

[dja2k]

I can't help myself but newegg has the WD WD6401AALS Black's for $70 with free shipping... so would you say buying 2 more is a good idea? Would you do it?

dja2k

 

[MadMan007]

^^^So you guys saying, the WD Caviar Black 1 TB is also good preformance/ noiseless wise?

The 1TB is definitely not a noiseless/quiet drive. It's not terrible but it seems that the extra platter adds a fair bit of noise over the 640GB versions. Then again I haven't heard the 640GB Black, only the 640GB Blue.

 

[TimoneX]

Yip. The WD6401AALS's are a steal at $70 shipped. Lowest $$$/GB in the excellent black product line.

Just snagged one to play with and despite newegg's usual incompetent packing of HD's the drive is in perfect working order.

 

[Kayden]

I've never had a problem with newegg shipping me drives. They usually come in hard plastic clamshells wrapped in plastic. As best I can remember, that's how it's always been.

Yip. The WD6401AALS's are a steal at $70 shipped. Lowest $$$/GB in the excellent black product line.

Just snagged one to play with and despite newegg's usual incompetent packing of HD's the drive is in perfect working order.

 

[Mike360000]

Hi, JJ
"Unrar(ing) large archives takes even less time. Boot time with AAKS after fresh OS install (using image created with acronis true image) was around 12,5 sec., with AALS boot time after fresh OS install (using the same image as previously) was @10,3sec."

I was wondering; I also have Acronis but I can't clone or make a working copy of XP with it using Intel Matrix RAID. Acronis website also said it wasn't possible. So what's your secret in making that work?

Thanks,
Mike

 

[TimoneX]

I've never had a problem with newegg shipping me drives. They usually come in hard plastic clamshells wrapped in plastic. As best I can remember, that's how it's always been.

In years upon years of ordering drives from newegg.com I've never gotten a clamshell. OEM drives come in anti-stat bags wrapped in bubble wrap and taped. So far so good...but then they loosely pack peanuts in a box and toss the drive in. Good enough for most shipments, but no good for drives. The peanuts settle during shipment leaving lotsa room for the drive to get smacked around. As a result the attrition rate I've experienced with OEM drives from newegg is around 20% DOA.

 

[jstutman]

In years upon years of ordering drives from newegg.com I've never gotten a clamshell. OEM drives come in anti-stat bags wrapped in bubble wrap and taped. So far so good...but then they loosely pack peanuts in a box and toss the drive in. Good enough for most shipments, but no good for drives. The peanuts settle during shipment leaving lotsa room for the drive to get smacked around. As a result the attrition rate I've experienced with OEM drives from newegg is around 20% DOA.

The 640's came in EDS bag with some crumbled cardboard paper around it.

Question, I ordered the AAKS when it was $60, then the next day the AALS was $70 so I ordered one of them. What kind of performace issues would I see if I tried to raid them like they are?

Would I better better off returning the AAKS and ordering another AALS?

 

[-JJ-]

I just raided my two 6401aals and i'm getting similar numbers to^. Where's the 4000 burst rate?

Hi, nkresho,

The reason why you are not getting burst rates as high as myself, because you are using much less space as I do . I am raiding two WD6401AALS and benching one large partition of 1,2tb . The less the partition, the smaller the burst speed result

Hi, JJ
"Unrar(ing) large archives takes even less time. Boot time with AAKS after fresh OS install (using image created with acronis true image) was around 12,5 sec., with AALS boot time after fresh OS install (using the same image as previously) was @10,3sec."

I was wondering; I also have Acronis but I can't clone or make a working copy of XP with it using Intel Matrix RAID. Acronis website also said it wasn't possible. So what's your secret in making that work?

Thanks,
Mike

Hi, Mike,

I am using Acronis True Image Home version 11.0 (build 8 053) and havnt had no problems of creating backups of my Intel Matrix Raid partition which contains XP . Acronis True Image Home simply recognizes it as any another partition and has no problem of backing it up whatsover.

 

[rainless]

Gonna bump this thread so I don't have to keep looking for my bookmark

 

[Mike360000]

Hey JJ,
I am so sorry I haven't been able to answer you earlier.
I have been really sick and in the hospital, plus a lot of related things.
Now that I am somewhat able to do things I am so far behind it has caused
me to really cut down on my computer time.

As for Acronis and my Matrix RAID, I haven't even had the time to work with it
to try another backup, and my main computer has given my XP startup
problems on top of that..... The main one I was writing about anyways.

For some reason when I recently changed upgraded my mobo and cpu... Q9550
and Gigabyte EP45-UD3P my RAID has always tested much slower. (Old version was
Core 2 6750 and Gigabyte P35-DS3P) I even done a clean install of XP with the same problem.
Well I had originally cloned the P35, before changing out the mobo and cpu, and hoped the
Matrix RAID would be seen by the new mobo since the Matrix was virtually the
same. It did not, and while having an image saved from Acronis I thought I would just
see if it would try and restore the image since Matrix was about the same, cept
different chipset. Running XP should not have had anything to do with this. I tried
to restore the old image but I never got it to recognize the RAID from the start.
So I did a fresh install, but have yet to back that up until I figure what would work.

Besides this problem and with the original install, when I first was running it on the upgraded
CPU/mobo, it showed a substancial slowdown in HD Tach as well as Sandra HD benchmarks.
Originally these drives were scoring app. 160-170 mbs with the old CPU/mobo but now it
shows app. 105 mbs or less. Again this is with the new cpu/mobo.

I am now wondering if this would have had anything to do Acronis not seeing the Matrix?

Anyhow I am still stuck with the performance problem with the new XP install and I am somewhat
afraid to try much in tweaks in fear it may ruin my whole install.

Any ideas?
I know this is a tough one...
Only thing I can think of is; I wonder if I accidently reversed the 2 HDs SATA
connections from one mobo to the new one? I don't even know if it would matter?

Thanks again,
Mike

 

[Malakai]

IMO on your OS drive access time > read/write throughput.

Raptors have ~8ms access time, WD caviar blacks are 12+.

Still, I would probably use a 640 black over a raptor if I was buying an os hdd right now.

 

[rainless]

Hey JJ,
I am so sorry I haven't been able to answer you earlier.
I have been really sick and in the hospital, plus a lot of related things.
Now that I am somewhat able to do things I am so far behind it has caused
me to really cut down on my computer time.

As for Acronis and my Matrix RAID, I haven't even had the time to work with it
to try another backup, and my main computer has given my XP startup
problems on top of that..... The main one I was writing about anyways.

For some reason when I recently changed upgraded my mobo and cpu... Q9550
and Gigabyte EP45-UD3P my RAID has always tested much slower. (Old version was
Core 2 6750 and Gigabyte P35-DS3P) I even done a clean install of XP with the same problem.
Well I had originally cloned the P35, before changing out the mobo and cpu, and hoped the
Matrix RAID would be seen by the new mobo since the Matrix was virtually the
same. It did not, and while having an image saved from Acronis I thought I would just
see if it would try and restore the image since Matrix was about the same, cept
different chipset. Running XP should not have had anything to do with this. I tried
to restore the old image but I never got it to recognize the RAID from the start.
So I did a fresh install, but have yet to back that up until I figure what would work.

Besides this problem and with the original install, when I first was running it on the upgraded
CPU/mobo, it showed a substancial slowdown in HD Tach as well as Sandra HD benchmarks.
Originally these drives were scoring app. 160-170 mbs with the old CPU/mobo but now it
shows app. 105 mbs or less. Again this is with the new cpu/mobo.

I am now wondering if this would have had anything to do Acronis not seeing the Matrix?

Anyhow I am still stuck with the performance problem with the new XP install and I am somewhat
afraid to try much in tweaks in fear it may ruin my whole install.

Any ideas?
I know this is a tough one...
Only thing I can think of is; I wonder if I accidently reversed the 2 HDs SATA
connections from one mobo to the new one? I don't even know if it would matter?

Thanks again,
Mike

Sounds like you just don't have Writeback cache enabled... which you would've had to do in the Matrix Storage Manager after upgrading.

IMO on your OS drive access time > read/write throughput.

Raptors have ~8ms access time, WD caviar blacks are 12+.

Still, I would probably use a 640 black over a raptor if I was buying an os hdd right now.

8ms hunh? Well then THE HELL with a raptor!

 

[Mike360000]

"Sounds like you just don't have Writeback cache enabled... which you would've had to do in the Matrix Storage Manager after upgrading."

Both Data Cache and Write Back Cache are enabled in the Matrix manager...

I originally thought the same thing.... so I rechecked and they are still enabled..

Mike

 

[dja2k]

Going to order 2 more WD6401AALS from Newegg for $70 shipped today. My current setup is 50 GB for Windows and the rest for Data. I will probably keep the MATRIX Raid setup with dual Raid O's using 4 WD6401AALS. Hope it pays off in the speed!

dja2k

 

[fritzman]

Anyone aware of any comparisons done between 640Gb Black edition drives in an array, with 1Tb Black Editions in the same setup?

I can't work out if there will be any benefits in running 2/3/4 drive raid0/raid5 matrix array using the 1Tb's over the 640's and am hoping someone can help.

 

[rainless]

Anyone aware of any comparisons done between 640Gb Black edition drives in an array, with 1Tb Black Editions in the same setup?

I can't work out if there will be any benefits in running 2/3/4 drive raid0/raid5 matrix array using the 1Tb's over the 640's and am hoping someone can help.

Can't imagine there's be a difference. Not if the stripe and sizes are the same. Be sure to use the 256kb offset mentioned elsewhere around here. Worked wonders for me (as you can see above.)

 

[KTE]

I don't know about significantly faster, probably not enough that you'd notice in day-to-day use. rainless likes to exagerrate things just a little Unfortunately smaller size drives in a series don't usually get the full application benchmark reviews from reliable websites.But for near the same cost might as well get the Caviar Black.

The new revision Caviar Blue drives are nearly as fast as the Caviar Black. In fact, they are faster than the Black in most benchmark metrics apart from full access latency and maximum large block sequential read which is odd (AFA I've seen). The older ones before E0 revision were slightly slower but hardly by much. Good HDD reviews like TR's show this astutely: http://techreport.com/articles.x/16472/1

I'd definitely get the Caviar Black if the price difference was small but its not around here.