Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

HELP! Western Digital's SE16's vs RE(YS) and RE2

Last response: in Storage
Share
November 12, 2006 10:09:22 PM

We all know that WD makes the best, cheapest drives you can get for your money right now. Or at least, we should. Between the Caviar SE16 models and the RE models that end with "YS"...what is the actual difference? Is there any? Is it worth the few extra dollars to buy the RE version? My understanding is that these RE drives are supposed to last longer or be more reliable. If that's the case, anybody know what makes them that way? I'm considering buying a couple of these drives to put in Raid-0 for an HTPC system I'm putting together. I might do Raid-1 instead for redundancy. I might also consider Raid-0 using two 250gb drives with a single large 500gb backup drive. In truth, a setup like that would be safer than having two drives in a mirrored Raid-0. Looking for intelligent feedback...if you don't know anything about the drives or only think you understand raid but have never even set one up, please don't respond. An honest to God WD rep would be great, as I really would love to know the technical differences between the RE(YS) models and the SE16 models.

WD's model sheet can be found here...
http://www.wdc.com/en/products/productcatalog.asp

Another of their comparison pages here...
http://www.wdc.com/en/products/productmatrix.asp?langua...
November 14, 2006 7:13:59 AM

*shrugs*

The RE is the enterprise edition, perhaps it stands for Raid Enterprise, while the SE is for home desktop and perhaps it stands for Serial ATA Edition with the cache number follows.

I just bought a WDC SE16 320gb 16mb cache (WDC WD3200KS), is it good compared to the reviews (i noticed most reviews use the RE/Enterprise edition)?
November 14, 2006 7:29:37 AM

Since that post I was informed that it stands for Raid Edition. I think they limit the amount of time it tries to realign so that it doesn't completely drop out of the array. However this can result in more corrupted files I believe.
November 14, 2006 9:05:27 AM

If you check out the WD documentation, they point out that it shouldn't result in corrupted files because they expect the drive to be used in an enterprise-level RAID array. The RAID array, not the drive, is taking care of the data integrity, so for performance reasons they have the drive give up trying fairly quickly so the array can log an error and move on, rather than delay waiting transactions for up to a few seconds while the drive tries heroically to get the data.
!