RE: New 270.

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com
[mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Andy Nolen-Parkhouse

>That said, I would suggest duplicating the number of arms from your
>model 400 on the 270, assuming performance is adequate (or at least not
>I/O-bound).  This may mean that you are swimming in excess capacity, but
>it is really the arm-count which will drive your performance rather than
>gigabytes of storage.

Andy,

1GB of main storage is a lot of room.  Shouldnt that decrease non database
paging and faulting, resulting in less disk IO ?  Even database paging
should decrease as the database reads are more likely to be found in the 1GB
main store space.  To address the disk arm shortage, is it better to add
another 17GB drive or 512MB of main store ?

I dont know in practice how this works, but the max main store of the
270(2431) is 8GB. At some level of main store disk IO should be reduced to
just handling database updates.  That is a lot less actual IO than we are
accustomed to seeing.


Steve Richter