<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Western Digital Caviar WD3200AVJS vs WD3200AAKS Benchmarks</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.technoish.com/hardware/western-digital-caviar-wd3200avjs-vs-wd3200aaks-benchmarks/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.technoish.com/hardware/western-digital-caviar-wd3200avjs-vs-wd3200aaks-benchmarks/</link>
	<description>Your Weekly Dose of News and Reviews</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 13:32:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: invicta watch review</title>
		<link>http://www.technoish.com/hardware/western-digital-caviar-wd3200avjs-vs-wd3200aaks-benchmarks/comment-page-1/#comment-43734</link>
		<dc:creator>invicta watch review</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:07:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.technoish.com/?p=726#comment-43734</guid>
		<description>In the great design of things you actually receive  a B- with regard to hard work. Where exactly you misplaced me personally was first on your specifics. You know,  as the maxim goes, details make or break the argument.. And that could not be much more correct in this article. Having said that, let me inform you what did give good results. The authoring can be pretty convincing which is probably why I am making an effort in order to comment. I do not really make it a regular habit of doing that. 2nd, although I can certainly notice a leaps in reasoning you come up with, I am definitely not confident of exactly how you appear to unite the ideas that produce the actual conclusion. For now I will, no doubt subscribe to your issue however wish in the future you link your facts better.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the great design of things you actually receive  a B- with regard to hard work. Where exactly you misplaced me personally was first on your specifics. You know,  as the maxim goes, details make or break the argument.. And that could not be much more correct in this article. Having said that, let me inform you what did give good results. The authoring can be pretty convincing which is probably why I am making an effort in order to comment. I do not really make it a regular habit of doing that. 2nd, although I can certainly notice a leaps in reasoning you come up with, I am definitely not confident of exactly how you appear to unite the ideas that produce the actual conclusion. For now I will, no doubt subscribe to your issue however wish in the future you link your facts better.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Goce</title>
		<link>http://www.technoish.com/hardware/western-digital-caviar-wd3200avjs-vs-wd3200aaks-benchmarks/comment-page-1/#comment-32123</link>
		<dc:creator>Goce</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2011 09:43:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.technoish.com/?p=726#comment-32123</guid>
		<description>Hello Acharya, 

Sorry for this great delay, I have really forgotten quite a bit this domain of mine :)

Well to give you a hint about what to do I it depends on what are your goals with your setup? Do you like to squeeze maximum performance, or make a more reliable setup?

a. Max Performance would mean using the second setup you suggested because AAKS models are faster therefore you will have the first stripe performing faster, but since you have only three AAKS that&#039;s the best way to squeeze faster performance. Using the first option would be quite the same, but having a mixture of the two drives won&#039;t differ much from having two AVJS together in terms of performance.
b. Reliable setup of course would mean using the third option you suggested, because as we all know slower performing drives are much more reliable and energy efficient most of the time ;) so if energy savings and lower percentage of drive fail is your priority your better option is the third using all four AVJS drives for both sets.

Best Regards Acharya!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello Acharya, </p>
<p>Sorry for this great delay, I have really forgotten quite a bit this domain of mine :)</p>
<p>Well to give you a hint about what to do I it depends on what are your goals with your setup? Do you like to squeeze maximum performance, or make a more reliable setup?</p>
<p>a. Max Performance would mean using the second setup you suggested because AAKS models are faster therefore you will have the first stripe performing faster, but since you have only three AAKS that&#8217;s the best way to squeeze faster performance. Using the first option would be quite the same, but having a mixture of the two drives won&#8217;t differ much from having two AVJS together in terms of performance.<br />
b. Reliable setup of course would mean using the third option you suggested, because as we all know slower performing drives are much more reliable and energy efficient most of the time ;) so if energy savings and lower percentage of drive fail is your priority your better option is the third using all four AVJS drives for both sets.</p>
<p>Best Regards Acharya!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: acharya</title>
		<link>http://www.technoish.com/hardware/western-digital-caviar-wd3200avjs-vs-wd3200aaks-benchmarks/comment-page-1/#comment-21789</link>
		<dc:creator>acharya</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Dec 2010 10:03:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.technoish.com/?p=726#comment-21789</guid>
		<description>Thank you for superb review highlight such a substantial difference in the performance of 2 drives  of  the same capacity from the same manufacturer. 

I would like to do a RAID 10 setup using 4 drives. 
I had no idea of this difference and have been purchasing  WD hard disks when doing system upgrades.
  
I have 3 of the AAKS model drives and 4 AVJS drives. All have a capacity of 320GB.

The options I have are:

1. using the 3 AAKS drives with one AVJS drive. In this case the  
    second set will have a mixture of the 2 drives.

2. using 2 AAKS drives for the 1st set and 2 AVJS drives for  the 
    2nd set.
 
3. using all the 4 AAVJS drives and keeping the AAKS drives as 
    backup / spares.

I&#039;m Fedora 14 64bit with 16GB RAM and AMD Phenom II 945 processor. The 4 port SATA II RAID controller is the ATI SB 600 on board on a Gigabyte motherboard.

Please let me have you recommendations.

Thanks,
Acharya</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for superb review highlight such a substantial difference in the performance of 2 drives  of  the same capacity from the same manufacturer. </p>
<p>I would like to do a RAID 10 setup using 4 drives.<br />
I had no idea of this difference and have been purchasing  WD hard disks when doing system upgrades.</p>
<p>I have 3 of the AAKS model drives and 4 AVJS drives. All have a capacity of 320GB.</p>
<p>The options I have are:</p>
<p>1. using the 3 AAKS drives with one AVJS drive. In this case the<br />
    second set will have a mixture of the 2 drives.</p>
<p>2. using 2 AAKS drives for the 1st set and 2 AVJS drives for  the<br />
    2nd set.</p>
<p>3. using all the 4 AAVJS drives and keeping the AAKS drives as<br />
    backup / spares.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m Fedora 14 64bit with 16GB RAM and AMD Phenom II 945 processor. The 4 port SATA II RAID controller is the ATI SB 600 on board on a Gigabyte motherboard.</p>
<p>Please let me have you recommendations.</p>
<p>Thanks,<br />
Acharya</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

