Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

(WD2002FYPS) vs (WD2003FYYS)

Tags:
  • Hard Drives
  • HD
  • Storage
Last response: in Storage
Share
July 9, 2010 1:19:19 PM

Hello,
how do I find out which HD is the best, money no object?
thanks,Andrew

More about : wd2002fyps wd2003fyys

July 9, 2010 2:17:35 PM

The WD2003FYYS is basically the faster "non-green" version of the WD2002FYPS so, the WD2003FYYS will be a bit faster but will not save as much power as the WD2002FYPS
m
0
l
a b G Storage
July 9, 2010 6:46:56 PM

Digitaleye said:
Hello,
how do I find out which HD is the best, money no object?
thanks,Andrew


Hi Andrew,

Take a look at this chart:
Average read rate

or read the whole review here:
Review

The "WD RE4 2TB", i.e. WD2003FYYS, at 115.9 MB/s average read rate, is the fastest HDD on that list.

The "WD RE4-GP 2TB", i.e. WD2002FYPS, at 87.7 MB/s, is somewhat slower indeed. As a Green model, it's designed to be quieter and cooler and consume a few watts less (IIRC something like 6W instead of 11W), rather than go for maximum speed.

Personally, I'm planning to build an HTPC with a WD2003FYYS for the O/S and the most often accessed stuff, and then add several WD2002FYPS (or some cheaper WD20EARS disks).
m
0
l
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
September 15, 2012 8:42:41 AM

Hi.

I'd like to mix WD2002FYPS and WD2003FYYS in a hardware RAID (Areca ARC-1220).
Is this possible or am I facing any kind of compatibility issues between both drives?

Also, any idea why the faster WD2003FYYS is #30 Euro cheaper than the WD2002FYPS? Should be the other way around?!

Are both drives designed for 24/7? Didn't wind any clear indications on WD site for WD2003FYYS.

Thanks.
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 326 G Storage
September 15, 2012 9:22:01 AM

Here are numerous PDF documents from WD's web site:

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=filetype%3Adoc+OR+fil...

The Compatibility Summary documents list the supported RAID controllers.

WD RE4 Compatibility Summary (WD2003FYYS, Firmware Rev: 01.01D01):
http://wdc.com/wdproducts/library/cs/2579-771506.pdf

WD RE4 Compatibility Summary (WD2002FYPS, Firmware Rev: 04.01G01):
http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/cs/2579-771386.pd...

WD RE4 Compatibility Summary (WD2002FYPS, Firmware Rev: 04.05G05):
http://support.wdc.com/product/compatibility/2579-77138...

WD RE4 Series Disti Spec Sheet - Western Digital (WD2003FYYS):
http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/SpecSheet/ENG/287...

WD RE4-GP Series Disti Spec Sheet - Western Digital (WD2002FYPS):
http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/SpecSheet/ENG/287...

BTW, the review data in aevm's post suggest that the Green model spins at 5400 RPM:

speed = 7200 x (87.7 / 115.9) = 5448 RPM
Share
September 16, 2012 5:36:11 PM

Thanks.

2002 = WD2002FYPS
2003 = WD2003FYYS

1. WDC lists don't show the 2003 compatible to ARC-1210, but ARECA says it is. Contradiction!

2. These lists don't mention (of course) the mixture between 2002 and 2003 HDDs. This was however my question. I'd like to use 2002 and 2003 mixed in the same array.

3. Also ... why is the slower 5400 #15% more expensive than the better performing 2003?

Thanks,
m
0
l
a c 326 G Storage
September 17, 2012 12:39:11 AM

Your questions might get a better answer in the NAS / RAID forum:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/forum-32-324.html

AIUI, some important factors to consider when assessing a drive's suitability for RAID are whether it supports TLER / ERC (Time Limited Error Recovery / Error Recovery Control), whether it is affected by APM (Automatic Power Management), and whether it supports the HDD Activity signal on pin #11 of the SATA power connector.

TLER / ERC determines how a drive handles read/write errors. It does this by imposing a timeout limit on reads and writes so that a drive won't be dropped from the array if it gets stuck on a bad sector.

APM causes a drive to go to sleep after a certain period of inactivity. Waking up from standby can take several seconds, which may impose an unacceptable lag on data transfers.

The activity LED is not always implemented by the HDD manufacturer. In fact I have seen one Seagate model which didn't support this signal in one particular firmware version, but did support it after a firmware update.

In short, it may be that WD and Areca have tested different firmware versions and arrived at genuinely different conclusions.

As for mixing drives of different speeds, I think this is OK, but it stands to reason that your RAID's overall performance would be limited to that of the slowest drive. In fact some people suggest that mixing drives from different manufactures or different families potentially improves the reliability of the RAID.
m
0
l
June 5, 2013 5:44:40 AM

The difference is power consumption, and it goes parallel with you usage requirement! WD2002FYPS supports "IntelliPower Technology" which allows it to shift speed gear between idle and busy mode (5400 - 7200), which in turns logically reduces certain amount of average data retrieval speed but saves reasonable energy and adds life, where as WD2003FYYS is a work horse (7200 sharp) no matter what situation runs in hard enough win the race :) 
m
0
l
June 6, 2013 2:09:57 PM

I would go with WD2003FYYS I had this drive for a long time now, in my server, works like a champ, no issues. WD2002FYPS is also great drive, so which ever you find the best
m
0
l
!