WDC1001FALS vs WDC1002FAEX
-
WDC1001FALS vs WDC1002FAEX
i have one of each of these drives, and want to purchase another, but am undecided as to which. They are both 1TB Black drives and are close to the same price, but the first one has 5 years warranty vs 3 years on the second, but the second has 64MBs cache vs 32 on the first. As far as I have found, these are the only differences, but I feel that I must be overlooking something. Currently, I can buy the 32MB cache drive for ~ $5 less than the other, but since the drive will be in an external case, the 64MB may be the better choice. Can someone offer a straw that will break my deadlock?
-
-
![]()
i have one of each of these drives, and want to purchase another, but am undecided as to which. They are both 1TB Black drives and are close to the same price, but the first one has 5 years warranty vs 3 years on the second, but the second has 64MBs cache vs 32 on the first. As far as I have found, these are the only differences, but I feel that I must be overlooking something. Currently, I can buy the 32MB cache drive for ~ $10 less than the other, but since the drive will be in an external case, the 64MB may be the better choice. Can someone offer a straw that will break my deadlock?
Hi seekermeister and welcome
While the cache may give you a slight performance increase (since it is external it might not) the extra 2 years is of much more value. It is value added and one never knows when a drive will fail.
I have had a drive fail after a month and others after 4 years. The extra two years may save you the price of purchasing another drive. That is no small benefit.
Jan
Last edited by JMH; 30 Aug 2010 at 22:32.
-
Yes, true, but another thought just occurred to me...if I should decide to create a raid array on one of the external cases, would I have to consider the model/cache differences as to whether the system would recognize them as being identical for raid purposes?
-
-
Here are the specs from WD
WD1001FALS - SATA 3gb - 32MB Cache - 5 yr war.
WD1002FAEX - SATA 6gb - 64MB Cache - 5 yr war.
Both have 5 yr Warranty.
So the WD1002FAEX is the better drive. However neither one is designed to be used in a RAID configuration and although it may work there may be some problems. The RE versions are designed for RAID.
Look here for RAID information.
http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc....i=&p_topview=1
Jim 
Last edited by Phone Man; 30 Aug 2010 at 22:16.
-
That's curious, because every ad that I have seen for the WD1002FAEX stated that the warranty is only 3 years...I'll have to dig deeper. Thanks for the info regarding the RE designation, that was something I was not aware of. I just did a very quick search and found the Western Digital RE3 WD1002FBYS for only slightly more cost, but it is only a 32MB cache also, so that is one more facet to consider.
-
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822136533
Newegg shows 5 yr Warranty.
Always go to the Manufactures site for the right information.
Now if you want RAID you would need two RE drives . Don't know if RAID is worth the expense, at least not in my case.
Jim
-
-
I don't know that I need/want raid either, but I just order another ESATCASE2 w/ space for two drives, which I shall eventually fill, so I may as well look ahead at possibilities. I just came across a thread elsewhere that is along the same lines as this, and it is unclear whether I really need the RE drives or not, but the prices that I found were much better than what they were talking about.
-
What type of RAID are you thinking about. Do you want to stripe the drives for more speed or mirror the drives for backup?
According to the link to WD the problem occurs when the drive is doing error correction and exceeds the time limit and the RAID thinks the drive has failed and drops it. That is why some people don't have problems and others do. You roll your dice and take your chances. The RE drives were designed for Enterprise systems where up time is critical so don't want to be dropping out.
Jim
-
I really haven't given it enough thought for making a decision, but in the past, I have always favored mirroring. However, that was when I had alot less redundancy that I have now, so I might stripe instead. Then again, I may do neither, because it is likely that these drives wil be used for A/V storage, and the second drive be simply used as backup. I'm simply trying to cover all bases.
-
I really haven't given it enough thought for making a decision, but in the past, I have always favored mirroring. However, that was when I had alot less redundancy that I have now, so I might stripe instead. Then again, I may do neither, because it is likely that these drives wil be used for A/V storage, and the second drive be simply used as backup. I'm simply trying to cover all bases.
There lies the problem. If you try to cover all bases the price goes up. 
Good luck with your decision.
Jim
Quote