WDC WD15EARS-00Z5B1 awful performance

I am having the exact same problem with the WD15EADS.  Last night I started to transfer 136GB(38,250 files) from one internal WD Raptor drive to this new WD15EADS.  The WD15EADS is getting response times of 5,900 ms to 21,000 ms.  While I was sitting here I did see a moment in time where all the response times went up to less than a millisecond for all files in the IO queue.  I am monitoring the IO queue with Windows 7 Resource Monitor.  I wonder if this has something to do with the 32MB buffer the hard drive manages.  I might try to investigate into the WDIdle3.exe tool I’ve been hearing about.  If you find a resolution please let me know.

 

mi6t0 wrote:

I have the HDD since last friday. From time to time it’s performing pretty bad.

 

http://community.wdc.com/t5/forums/forumtopicpage/board-id/caviar/thread-id/37/page/2 - I think   jayoungf9 has very similar issue.

 

What I’ve noticed: (the tests have been performed on win XP SP3, both on onboard and PCI SATA controller). Also tried via USB docking station and another PC with XP SP 2. FAT32 and NTFS tested. I also tried with jumpers on pins 7&8 (for use as a single drive) and the WD utility. It said that drive is performing optimal…

 

  • with one single partition, as soon as I fill 70% or more, it starts to write with speeds betweeen 900kb/s and 2 MB/s, most of the time with around 1MB/s.
  • Then I read some forums and got the idea to try with more that one partition (one small -20GB and two big, almost 680 GB each).  The behaviour occured only with the partition that was in the first half of the drive. I thought that it could be due to bad sectors or just faulty plate, but it happens only with the last 10% of the HDD capacity… Which is really strange.
  • Then I tested with adjusting the sectors to 512 and 1024, nothing changed.
  • Also, if I start encrypting the drive, it does it with about 5-6 MB/s. For example, the older WD 1.5T green drive does it on my system with about 30-40 MB/s.

 

 

I found no firmware for this model… Can someone help? It might be either a bad revision, or a FW bug…