|
>I agree Al. In fact I think the next performance bottleneck _has been_ >DASD arm contention for several years now. Larry Bolhuis and I have >beat our drums, and beat our drums, and beat our drums, but everyone >has said: no, no, no, probably not a problem, because of faster disks, >faster disk controllers, and write cache, and more write cache, and you >should believe in the new technology... I am no performance guru. I ask this purely for education, since I am a little bit puzzled by the angst I'm reading here. With the recent announcements and discussion about the 4gb drives going away and, now, the smallest drives you can buy are 8gb, and both the 4gb & 8gb drives have the same number of arms and, so, therefore, the arms must cover twice the amount of DASD. However, the other part of the announcement & discussion was that the price of the 8gb drives dropped to the level of the discontinued 4gb drives. If so, what has been lost? The managers concerned about disk arm performance now have to, generally speaking (and perhaps easier said than done), ensure that DASD utilization on the 8gb drives never exceeds half of what they would allow the 4gb drives to exceed. Their costs have not been increased, as far as I can tell. They are paying the same amount for the number of arms, which is the critical factor, more so than the drive capacity. Educate me, please. - Dan Bale (I am *NOT* "Dale" http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/200105/msg00281.html )
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.