Curious about Western Digital drives

[Ronin]

SPCR's review of the WD5000KS concluded that 'The 500 GB Caviar SE16 is the quietest 3.5" desktop drive that we know of on the market today.' - But goes on to say that 'The only real question mark about the Caviar SE16 is performance.'

A couple of days ago X-Bit Labs tested that exact drive (along with an enterprise version) in a 500GB shootout. They concluded: 'Western Digital: the two drives from this company were the stars of this review.'

Now this makes the WD drives pretty interesting IMO, which is why I want to use one for my next build.

The questions:

X-Bit Labs tested the SE16 WD5000KS and the enterprise model RE2 WD5000YS. The latter seemed to be slightly faster. According to WD's site they share the same accoustics.

1: Ignoring price differences, are there any reasons not to use an enterprise model in a desktop, single user, non-raid setup?

I'm planning to go with a 320 or a 400 GB drive.

2: If we take the SE16 series, does anyone know how many platters are in each drive?

3: If the 320 and the 400 GB drives have different platter densities, which is likely to perform better?

Thanks.

[kesv]

1: Ignoring price differences, are there any reasons not to use an enterprise model in a desktop, single user, non-raid setup?

WD themselves state that the error recovery algorithm used by the raid edition drives is not suitable for desktop use. However, what it means in practice is that the RE drive gives up slightly sooner for failed blocks than desktop drives. Proper hardware RAID cards force reallocation of failed blocks, so it's not an issue for them until you run out of spares. On the other hand the RE drives should have been tested for heavier use, so you should get less failures (theoretically).

My guess is there isn't really much difference between the two versions for most users. Using a checksumming filesystem like Sun's ZFS would probably eliminate any disadvantage that the RE drives have.