LG Blu-Ray Disc Rewriter Model WH16NS40 Review

This is an internal drive which can write and read virtually all forms of CD, DVD, and Blu-Ray (BD) discs, including four-layer 128GB BDs.  It works perfectly so far.

Test System: 

LG Blu-Ray Write/Read Drive
Model WH16NS40

Seven-year-old mini-tower computer, home-built from an Intel DP35DP motherboard hosting an E6750 CPU with dual 2.66 GHz processors, 8 GB memory at 800 MHz, system bus 1066 MHz, running Windows Vista Ultimate. Hard disks are SATA 2TB Seagate hybrid disks.

The system is used as a computer, not as a video player. This review is about data backup. It should apply to copying video files as well, but you might want a newer, faster CPU to actually play or manipulate the video files.  The owners' manual lists the E6750 CPU at 2.66 GHz as the minimum system.

The originally-installed Samsung SH-203B DVD Drive is still in place and functioning well after seven years.  It can read and write DVD+R DL (dual layer) discs, though I only use it with standard and archival single-layer DVD's.  Each month, sometimes more often, I create a backup copy of our own important files (not system files or application executables) on a MAM-A DVD-R gold archival disc for long-term storage, then copy that disc to regular DVD's for shorter-term offsite storage.  Those important files have grown beyond the DVD's 4.7GB capacity, however, so the new LG Blu-Ray Disc (BD) Drive will bump that limit up to about 25GB.  A firmware update from version 1.00 to 1.01-A0 is available for the drive but not yet installed.  (First rule of life:  If it works, you can't fix it.)

Test Method:

The new BD drive was installed in the mini-tower just below the DVD drive.  The generic
Windows Vista software was used to write each disc initially.  ISO Recorder 3.1 was used to restore each disc back to an ISO file, or to write that out to another disc. The following tests were performed to demonstrate single-drive data integrity as well as cross-drive data integrity:

• CD read:  On the BD drive, restore two of our oldest archival CD's, going back to 1997.  No read errors.  Open a few files to verify data integrity.

• CD write/read, using Verbatim CD-R discs:  Write a disc on each drive, restore each disc back to a desktop ISO file using each drive (four ISO files).  No errors reported.  With the Windows utility called comp, compare the two ISO's which were created from a disc written on one drive and restored from the other.  This is a byte-for-byte comparison, and no differences were reported.

• DVD write/read, using TDK DVD-R discs:  Same procedure as for CD's.  No errors, no differences.

• DVD+R DL write/read, using Verbatim DVD+R DL discs:  Same procedure as for CD's.  The discs were filled to about 5.25GB, so that both disc layers would be used.  No errors, no differences.

• BD-R write/read, using Verbatim 25GB 6x BD-R discs:  Write a disc containing 21 GB of data including thousands of files (photos).  Restore that back to an ISO.  Write the ISO to another BD-R disc, restore that back to a second ISO, compare.  No errors, no differences.

• BD-R 50GB, 100GB, and 128GB: Not tested - I don't need this functionality now, but I have no reason to doubt that it will work when it is needed, and perhaps disc prices will be better.

Data integrity test results:

The LG Blu-Ray Disc Rewriter Model WH16NS40 performed perfectly.  I am impressed, and I now have renewed confidence in the old Samsung DVD drive as well.

Vista Speed-display Issue:

On this "old" Vista system the writing speed, estimated time left, and progress bar were all displayed incorrectly for the BD discs.  Specifically, the Windows software reported that it intended to write at 39x, and the ISO Recorder program thought it would write at 351x.  I seriously doubt that either was correct.

For both drives and all discs, I always allowed the write to take place at the maximum displayed speed (i.e. 39x or 351x), not attempting to reduce it.  I have no idea what the actual write speed was for the BD discs, and I did not time any of the operations, but the data files were obviously recorded without error.

First actual Blu-Ray backup:

• Write encrypted and unencrypted files to a Delkin 6x 25GB Archival Gold BD-R.
• Restore that disc back to the desktop as an ISO file.
• Write that ISO to each of three Verbatim 6x 25GB BD-R discs for offsite storage.
• Open and verify some encrypted files on the last of those discs as a final check.

This procedure worked flawlessly, backing up about 12GB, except that one of the Verbatim BD-R discs failed immediately when ISO Recorder 3.1 tried to write to it.  That one disc was discarded with no attempt at diagnosis.  I attribute the failure to the disc, not the drive, and comments on other blogs confirm that such failures can occur.

I believe that this process creates archival Blu-Ray discs which will last at least as long as there are drives capable of reading them.  The Delkin Archival Gold BD-R discs cost me about $10 each in a pack of of 5, and the Verbatim BD-R discs about $1 each in a spindle of 25.  Both are cheaper in larger quantities, and other brands are available.  The LG Owner's Manual recommends Sony and Panasonic discs for BD-R 25GB, but does not say whether Delkin or Verbatim discs were ever tested.

Blu-Ray versus Flash for Archival Storage:

Removable-media technology seems to be moving away from optical discs and toward USB flash drives these days, and video is increasingly downloadable, so Blu-Ray discs may never enjoy the popularity of DVD's.  Flash for archival storage is controversial, however, and it is still at least as expensive as Blu-Ray for similar capacity, so Blu-Ray is a better choice for now.

Everything is Here

The Intel E6750 Boxed CPU and three Western Digital 320-Gb SATA hard drives arrived today, and now all of the parts are here. I set everything except the case out on the picnic table for a photo. Out of several photos, my sweetie liked this one with fall color in the background :-)

Then I downloaded an Intel video that demonstrates how to install the processor and "thermal solution" (fan + heat sink) on the Intel DP35DP motherboard. After playing the video once, I played it again and did the installation while watching the video. What makes it tricky is that dozens upon dozens of tiny pins on the motherboard socket must match up with a similar number of contact lands on the CPU wafer, without bending any of the pins.

And the CPU is just a wafer at this point, not fragile exactly but the motherboard pins are. You are supposed to set the square wafer straight down on the pins without sliding it at all, but I must admit that when I set it down it wasn't perfectly aligned and it did slide slightly. I hope those pins handled it - I didn't look.

After inserting the wafer you close a little door and then a little spring handle to press the door and wafer down tightly against the socket pins. Then you put the heatsink on top of it all and fasten it down with its own little plastic clips, plug the heatsink fan into the appropriate connector, tie off any spare wire, and job done. I hope. I'll feel a little better when I power it up and get a BIOS screen.

By comparison, the 4 Gb of G.Skill RAM seemed quite easy to install. Just push it carefully into the socket.

On another note: My first experience with computers was in 1962, 45 years ago, when disk drives were barely on the horizon. We used a magnetic tape operating system, and wrote programs on punched cards or paper tape. Later, about 28 years ago, I bought my first computer while working at 3M, with 64 Kb of RAM (yes RAM, not core), and a 5-Mb disk drive which was too heavy for one person to manage alone. These palm-sized disks each have 64,000 (sixty-four thousand) times as much disk capacity, and the CPU will enjoy 62,500 times as much RAM. Oh, and the RAM is about 800 times faster, while the CPU is easly 2500 times faster and there are two in the chip. Isn't technology stunning?

CPU Cooling

The Intel Core 2 Duo 6750 processor comes in a retail box from NewEgg and others, complete with a processor cooling solution consisting of a small fan and cooling fins. Concerned about noise, I searched for a passive design, without a fan, to replace the Intel cooler, and came across the web site FrostyTech.com, where CPU heatsinks of many types are compared. One of the evaluated heatsinks is the "stock" fan/fin cooler provided by Intel with the boxed processor.

According to FrostyTech, the Intel cooler is very quiet, one of the quietest coolers evaluated. The article includes a large table of coolers, with the stock Intel 35 db quieter than the noisiest cooler and about 20 db quieter than the median. The description was also very favorable, it "operates very quietly at its default speed."

However the fan was not tested in the mode in which it will actually be used. FrostyTech used a 3-pin connector, which causes the fan to adjust its speed according to ambient air temperature. In the Intel boxed solution a 4-pin connector is used, permitting the fan speed to be programmed according to the actual CPU temperature, in which case it might run faster and make more noise. Nevertheless, it's my guess that the Intel fan will be quiet enough, probably much quieter than the two mirrored 320 Gb disk drives that will be running in the same cabinet, and probably also quieter than the cabinet fan.

FrostyTech also evaluated the cooler's actual cooling ability, applying an 85-watt heat load, which is slightly higher than the 65 watts dissipated by the E6750 at maximum current. Here the Intel cooler did not fare as well, ending up near the top of the list with the highest CPU temperature (least cooling), some 20 degrees C higher than the best cooler. Again, though, the fan was not operated in the mode in which it will be used in my computer. I suspect that Intel knows what it is doing, and the cooling will be adequate for my relatively tame application.

I did find two heatsinks by Spire, both of which include a noisy fan, but which (according to Spire) can be used without the fan if the heat load is not excessive. One of these was also evaluated by FrostyTech, who downrated it for its bulkiness and thought it was difficult to install and remove. They did not test it without the fan, but considering the tests they did perform I doubt that it would perform very well without the fan unless there was a gale wind flowing through the cabinet. In my modest search I did not find any other passive CPU heatsinks. These are available on some graphic accelerator cards (which are CPUs in their own right) but apparently not for CPUs. If you know different, please let me know.

Bottom line: I'm going with the stock Intel cooler unless the noise is a big surprise. If so, then I'll look at other coolers.

RAID

RAID is a computer acronym meaning "Redundant Array of Independent Disks." Wikipedia. In this case we're talking about "mirrored" disks, one of the simplest RAID configurations, where two identical disks contain identical data so that one can continue operating if the other fails. Since they contain the same data the second disk doesn't add any disk capacity, but it does add reliability. Pros:

• The hard disk is MUCH less apt to crash. Only people who have experienced a crash can fully appreciate this.
• Perhaps I can get away with less backup, e.g. only back up the most sensitive data.
• Or, I can buy a THIRD drive and hot-swap it, so the swapped-out drive is the backup.
• I'd enjoy the experience of setting it up and using it.

Cons:

• It's more expensive: I need two drives, not one, and the motherboard (which manages the drives) costs a little more.
• The drives will make twice as much noise. Hmmm.
• It doesn't solve ALL backup problems: If I accidentally permanently delete a file, it will be gone on BOTH drives; if lightning hits the computer it could easily take out both drives.

I'm leaning toward RAID, as you may have guessed. But haven't decided yet for sure. Seems like overkill for a simple office computer. But then again there's the experience of it ...

Here are some other features of the computer that's starting to come together:

• Sonata III 500 case, with 500 W power supply. This is the outer box for the whole thing, and this box is quiet with plenty of power available.
• Intel E6750 dual-core processor, 2.66 GHz, 1333 front-side bus, with Intel motherboard to match. This is two very fast processors in one. By the time I get going on this, the E6850 may come down in price, even faster.
• 2 Gb of 2-channel DDR2 memory, 800 MHz. Expandable to 8 Gb they say, but the chips for that don't exist yet; 4 Gb is the max.
• Seagate 320 Gb SATA-300 drive(s). Big enough for me.
• Sony AWG170S-B2 18x DVD read/write.

But everything is still in pencil. Absolutely everything. Meantime, though, I did a little pricing of the materials lists for WITH RAID and withOUT RAID. Here are very preliminary materials lists:

• With RAID.
• Without RAID.

I'm totally new at this, a complete novice. If there is anyone out there reading this blog with an idea or a word of caution, I'd love to hear from you.