Us with professional technical background in electronics, we never make easy to be answered questions.
I did read that Enterprise class WD2005FBYZ in RAID-1, these outperform a single WD2005FBYZ at MB/s transfer.
According to my current experience with RAID-1 and with double WD Raptor 10.000 rpm 75GB of the year 2005, these HDD’s lose 7% when are in RAID-1 vs benchmarks with a single HDD.
My motherboard this is Gigabyte GA-Z87X-UD5H
10 SATA ports
Intel(R) Chipset SATA/PCIe RST Premium Controller
Service: iaStorAC
Device class: SCSI Adapter
Now I have two questions:
a) I am going to make a RAID-1 pair with
WD2005FBYZ-01YCBB3
WD2005FBYZ-01YCBB2
01YCBB3 this is classified as UASP (Serial ATA) = better handling of SCSI commands due USB 3.0 connection.
01YCBB2 this is classified as USB (Serial ATA) = not really compatible to latest edge of USB 3.0 standard.
Therefore should I freely assume that there is no negative performance impact at (Serial ATA) connection?
b) WD2005FBYZ this has 128MB of Cache, how is possible at RAID-1 to outperforms a single HDD?
Is there any technical innovation (not publicly spoken) this combing both HDD cache 128+128 so this combination to outperform the identical HDD when this run single?
I did extended web search for several weeks, Google this is empty of specific HDD benchmarks in RAID-1.
And this is a fault of WD marketing, which does not offer free samples to professional blogger, neither has an easy door so to be contacted.
Now I am forced acting as another Sherlock Holmes, so to discover the truth.