× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.


  • Subject: RE: Disk sizes and performance
  • From: "Van Lint, Paul [NCSBE]" <pvlint@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 14:02:55 +0200

Robin,

The number of disk arms is only one element in the story. (It was the way I
looked for disk performance in the past).
We use for the large disk capacities EMC disk subsystem, with 3 Gigabyte
cache in the EMC box.  This means that you have very good disk performance.
(Disadvantage of EMC may be the higher price)
I think IBM comes out right now with a new disk subsystem with an
intelligent cache to improve the performance, and to avoid the problems with
the disk arms. 
 
Paul 

-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Sapiro [mailto:robin.sapiro@home.com]
Sent: Monday, August 02, 1999 2:34 AM
To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
Subject: Disk sizes and performance


I am looking for some ball park estimates on when to use a greater number of
small disk drives versus a smaller number of larger disk drives.

Conventional wisdom is that the more disk arms you have the better the
performance. Obviously this is directly related to the amount of I/O being
done on the system. I feel however that there is some point (total disk
required) at which adding additional disk arms does not have any significant
improvement on performance and at that point it is more beneficial to use
larger disks which results in financial savings in the form or lesss $/GB,
less controllers, less racks etc.

Any opinions as to what the magic number might be. ie if less than n GB on a
system, use 4 GB drives. for n-m GB on a system use 8.5 GB drives and for
greater than m GB on a system use 17 GB drives.

Also what is the general opinion as to the DASD % utilisation at which I/O
performance begins to degrade.

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator:
david@midrange.com
+---
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...


Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

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.