Review Index:
Feedback

Western Digital SATA 6Gb/sec 1TB Caviar Black (WD1002FAEX) Review

Subject: Storage
Manufacturer: Western Digital
Tagged:

Introduction

Western Digital recently (and silently) slipped a SATA 6Gb/sec model into their Caviar Black lineup.  We obtained a sample to evaluate how this drive stacks up against the other WD models.  We're also using it as an opportunity to evaluate performance across several controller types.  We'll be using our trusty ICH10R as well as a few new Marvell controllers sporting 6Gb/sec SATA.

The new and improved Caviar Black.

For those curious, this new drive does not incorporate Advanced Format.  I suspect Western Digital will be leaving that feature to their lower spindle speed drive lines, since larger block sizes have a negative impact on smaller-than-2KB random writes - similar to what happens with a 2KB stripe size RAID.

 

The new Caviar Black on our testbed.
Lets get to it!

 

 

August 26, 2011 | 07:16 PM - Posted by Kelly (not verified)

I find it odd that the author chides Marvell for the interface performance: in effect doubling the Windows O.S. for transference.
I am bewildered he then goes on to say that the 2TB Drives are faster, but perhaps, should be equalled by the WD1002FAEX.

If the Marvel controller were saturating on the Motherboard, it probably would similarly saturate for the 2TB Hard Disks. Assuming that the OEM PC and the Windows O.S. have not changed, this particular difference must lie within the testing of the WD1002FAEX.

[While it is alleged that] Marvell's 88SE9123 or 88SE9128 controllers have not been able to deliver improvements to 3GB/sec as suggested; this is partly and largely due to Marvell's SE91XX drivers having flaws.

January 23, 2012 | 12:25 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Some software requires caching to be disabled. For example, SQL Server. When the driver ignores convention, you have no choice on having a reliable system.

December 20, 2012 | 01:07 PM - Posted by RKF (not verified)

1.5 and 2 TB have a major and minor arm whereas 1 TB has only 1

December 20, 2012 | 01:07 PM - Posted by RKF (not verified)

1.5 and 2 TB have a major and minor arm whereas 1 TB has only 1

April 17, 2013 | 06:28 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Have had two of these fail - from completely different systems. Steer clear!!

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.