Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


Sign in to follow this  
amp_man

Hard drive question: WD's RE vs SE16 line

Recommended Posts

Okay, I'm looking at a new 320gb SATA drive for my desktop, and then moving my old 250gb IDE drive into a fileserver/router running gentoo linux. I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out exactly what to get though, I've narrowed it down to two options:

WD Caviar SE16 WD3200KS

WD Caviar RE WD3200YS

The only real difference I can see is that the RE has a faster average write time, 8.9ms vs. 10.9ms, but the sole review states that this drive shouldn't be used in a single-drive setup (which is what I intend to have). I'm trying to figure out what the downfall of using the RE in my desktop would be, because afaik, it's just a slightly faster drive (and I think with a longer warranty), well worth an extra $5 in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The RE edition stands for RAID EDITION, which is why it's not "recommended" for single drive use.

It comes with TLER (Time Limited Error Recovery) which is used to negotiate with hardware RAID controllers and raises it's ability to recover from errors (and changes nothing without said hardware raid controller).

The RE edition also features 1 million hours MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures), it's a server class drive and Western Digital offers a 5 year warranty on it. Knowing that it's conceived to be run in servers 24/7 under heavy use, 5 years is a long time to warranty a drive under those conditions, so it can't be anything but a quality drive.

TLER can be disabled on the RE using a simple jumper at the back of the drive. There's so little difference between 8MB and 16MB cache for storage that the reliability of the RE edition makes it an ideal candidate for storing and archiving all your data safely with your mind at peace.

If performance is more important then reliability, I would look at getting a 150GB WD Raptor instead or going with RAID 0 or 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The RE edition stands for RAID EDITION, which is why it's not "recommended" for single drive use.

But there shouldn't be any issue with running it as one? That's what I gather from your post. I already have a 36.7gb Raptor for my windows drive, the 320gb drive would be for file storage (music, movies, nlite'd windows isos, etc), so reliability is more important than speed. And btw, the RE also has the 16mb cache, so I guess I've got no more reason not to order it. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, no problem running it as a single drive.

Be careful when you buy the RE, two editions exist which are almost identical...

The 320GB RE with model number WD3200SD is SATA 1.5GB and 8MB cache.

The 320GB RE with model number WD3200YS is SATA 3GB and 16MB cache.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope, no problem running it as a single drive.

Be careful when you buy the RE, two editions exist which are almost identical...

The 320GB RE with model number WD3200SD is SATA 1.5GB and 8MB cache.

The 320GB RE with model number WD3200YS is SATA 3GB and 16MB cache.

Oh shoot, that reminds me of the question I forgot to ask: SATA 3GB is backwards compatible to 1.5GB, right? I currently only have 1.5GB, since I foolishly didn't wait for the nforce 4 to come out (which also means I have an AGP video card and MSI has already discontinued support for my mobo).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, they're interoperable. Your communication method will change to the lowest available between the controller and the drive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, that's what I thought, just needed to make sure. Thanks for all the help!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

X-Bit just finished a review on 500GB drives, read all about it here. It’s not a surprise that WD with both drives came out best and Seagate finished second ;).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...