|
Our model 640s have an extensive farm of 4 Gig drives. IBM's performance squad did inform us that we're getting much better performance for system of our size simply because we have so many arms! Just in passing, I mentioned our arms to our CE and mumbled something about number of arms in the new hardware. He pointed out that the newest drives are 10,000 RPM vs slower speeds, plus the on-board cache is larger, which both tend to compensate for the number of arms being 1/4 of what we have now. I assume you're going to set these up as a RAID or Mirror set! Now, I haven't actually seen any numbers, and have no practical experience with bigger drives, but you may want to consider the speed as part of the equation. --Paul E Musselman PaulMmn@ix.netcom.nospam.com >Matthias Muttered (in part): > >- Disk arms: I'm looking at getting 4 17GB disks. Another option would >be to get 6 8GB disks in order to spread the load over more arms. But >from what I hear, IBM is going to discontinue the 8GB drives shortly >due to problems. How badly will having just 4 arms impact performance? >Are the 17GB's the right choice (performance wise)?
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.
midrange.com
