× 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.


  1.  Home
  2. MIDRANGE-L
  3. January 2019

RE: 1879 vs 1916 disk drive comparison

  • Subject: RE: 1879 vs 1916 disk drive comparison
  • From: "Steinmetz, Paul" <PSteinmetz@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 13:55:17 +0000
  • Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of psteinmetz@xxxxxxxxxx designates 209.50.150.210 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=PSteinmetz@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-language :accept-language:in-reply-to:references:message-id:date:thread-index :thread-topic:subject:to:from; bh=aBaTlVtQOWWyynt+5BxY6U3cINGzO+yQi9nTtMtkcsg=; b=DiFFGKT0lGONJUYh60z3W5ClOrhRfT91yMhX7AZICEUWBfYKuQhRKkCDthGxjGXoij 0kWTh5h9HaE3pRCLtv1WKQ+X0TdA2sn9bxQAQV3LN6bI8YbYQdXk5HyAEWd42IGTqNlD ZOINZVrs8hLN8t3+t0+Oh5VdRsVvEID9tMep5zwIxiJDVnEEsTLpaCnBi8EIiV1K37oj 2Gb002FLHqM/H7TgCfPrOLRmP3sINpu2a2eaVa+/9eAWjfleEmF9r/UKpfvp2KI4wJ6g obk+scGOxsuyvbEmEMD8MynHepvi/+Vg/QedQQIXXI/B/wHDJudqJ/UWRZS0Cl3srD2v ZxJw==
  • Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1547474118; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=g2w7byxwcEAmZBjyhL7sSUBe9CIXqV8DlbYFtetx8hk38hI7BHP2z9f7UTEOn2kIvf lCIoRJ8qL+ThdUXg6+qVNpNIS6Zz/db4w3/e1oaPhAk8DLTaUdoiYi+L3MZUUVsV0ACm nDuBFX+0Irs7Y3QMw8opiqVUw5GlXWq/Jn8pJHEB7c7A6Astnq2KTtUOxe+RVxc3Jm5x IlC+eXRSj5RlPIVkBXtSBoy9XXWuCCqjG2Xm6BMDfqWrRJpppylcxpApajlvRGD9MmVr BCYiIjZrCCrKgEQNwOSLRIxY4Pg57bVq1A8wYdB83N03OoxgpoeZ6k3owViUwr73TwYO URfQ==
  • List-archive: <https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/>
  • List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@lists.midrange.com?subject=help>
  • List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.lists.midrange.com>
  • List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@lists.midrange.com>
  • List-subscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@lists.midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/options/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@lists.midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Jerry,

Since 2012, I've been running our P7 R&D LPAR with 24 - 1916: 571GB 10K RPM SAS SFF Disk Drive (IBM i)
Interactive response time ok except during IDX rebuilds.
Batch times not good.
Also IPLs, PTF applies, Saves, Restores, IDX - rebuilds. much longer.

I needed the larger space and opted for the 1916-571gb 10k RPM over 1948-283GB 15k RPM SAS SFF-2 Disk Drive (IBM i).
We paid the price.

Stay away from the 10k drives if at all possible.

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: MIDRANGE-L [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jerry Draper
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2019 2:54 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: 1879 vs 1916 disk drive comparison

We need to upgrade disk drives in our 8202 SAS machine.

We have: 1879: 283GB 15K RPM SAS SFF Disk Drive (IBM i)

Replacement drives: 1916: 571GB 10K RPM SAS SFF Disk Drive (IBM i)

We will will gain necessary disk space but these are 10k drives vs the
1817 at 15k.

What might be the response time for our users?

Thanks,

Jerry



As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...
Replies:
Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 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.