dagger :
Are you just arguing for the sake of arguement?
No, I'm arguing because your evaluation of the WD drive is flat wrong and you're too arrogant to admit it.
dagger :
The performance of that WD is inferior than other 1TB drives out there, and that is a fact, as shown by many benchmarks and first hand experience by users.
That's correct, and I never said otherwise.
dagger :
They can claim whatever "technologies" they want, but it's meaningless unless it
translates to benchmark performance.
This one of your problems. You fail to realize that "performance" means more than just speed. It also refers to reliability, longevity, control of errors under adverse conditions instead of lab conditions, etc. These "technologies" are not meaningless, they're very real in terms of what they're designed to do.
dagger :
So 16mb cache with "server-tuned firmware, which optimizes cache assignment" provides better performance than 32mb cache? And 5400rpm with "optimized head movement" is faster
than 7200rpm?
No. I never said those things, and neither did anyone else. You have failed to understand a word I've said. Re-read my posts.
dagger :
The other competing brands put a bunch of meaningless gibberish in their product features too. Why don't you cite those? Those never make a detectable difference in performance. I do have gaps
in my knowledge. I don't know what "Enterprise Class" and "Specifically for RAID" is supposed to mean, and I don't want to.
This is your main problem. You are either unwilling or unable to open your mind and grasp a fundamental understanding of these items. They are indeed "meaningless gibberish" to you because you "don't want to know" what they mean. Your attitude and arrogance are preventing you from making anything more than a superficial, uninformed, and in this case, incorrect judgement.
dagger :
You, on the other hand, seem to lack either fundamental understanding of hardware or sound judgement.
This is, of course, the conclusion you would be expected to draw due to your lack of understanding of the topic.
dagger :
As for reliability, I highly doubt that 1.2M hour claim, as it haven't been around for that long. They can claim whatever they want, doesn't make it true.
You are nowhere near qualified to argue the merits of MTBF since you don't understand the term or the methodology behind it.
The bottom line is that the WD drive is not a "bad drive" at all, but a good fit for certain applications in certain settings. Would I choose this drive for a single machine that would be used for typical home use or gaming? Probably not. Speed would be the underlying important factor, as as the WD-RE2-GP is slower than some other 1TB drives, it wouldn't be the best choice. On the other hand, if I'm selecting drives to use in SAN enclosures in a datacenter, and I have 12 SAN units that have to be populated with 15 drives each, I would definitely choose the WD-RE2-GP over 7200.11s due to the lower power consumption, higher reliability, and the RAID-friendly design.
To the OP:
Sorry to get off topic, but I dislike seeing incorrect information posted from people who don't know what they're talking about.
For your application, the recommended drive would probably be the 1TB Seagate 7200.11. If you would like more reliability and are willing to pay for it, you can also look at the 1TB Seagate Barracuda ES.2. This is actually Seagate's competitor to the WD RE2. It's 1.2M hours MTBF with a 0.73% AFR at 24/7 operation, has a PowerTrim feature to reduce power consumption (not as much as the RE2-GP), server-tuned firmware, and has broad spectrum vibrational tolerance. However, it's as fast as the 7200.11 (indeed, it's based on the same design).
Don't let your experience with the WD MyBook affect your decision here. The MyBook is a pretty poorly designed external drive. The RE2 is enterprise-class ... totally different. If you don't like the lower speeds of the RE2-GP, you can also look at the WD RE2 (non-GP version). The highest capacity is 750GB instead of 1TB, but it has the high reliability, and is faster than the RE2-GP. It's roughly equivalent to the Seagate Barracuda ES series drives, which are one generation back from current offerings (i.e. 7200.10 equivalent).