On 1/7/2015 12:50 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Right... but only cost 133% (about) more than consumer drives, as opposed to the 300% that the "server/enterprise" grade drives' cost.
well, those $$$ drives are likely SAS rather than SATA, and that has other advantages... 10k or 15k RPM gives you up to double the IOPS per spindle of a 7200rpm SATA drive (and WD Reds are only 5900 RPM, I believe?)... 2.5" enterprise disks let you have more smaller spindles in the same space (24-25 per 2U vs 12 for 3.5") for higher IO concurrency, and SAS supports multipathing (dual porting) for higher IO bandwidth, also SAS has tagged command queueing which often performs better than SATA NCQ under high IO concurrency workloads, like database servers.
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:30 PM, John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
Right... but only cost 133% (about) more than consumer drives, as opposed to the 300% that the "server/enterprise" grade drives' cost.
well, those $$$ drives are likely SAS rather than SATA, and that has other advantages... 10k or 15k RPM gives you up to double the IOPS per spindle of a 7200rpm SATA drive (and WD Reds are only 5900 RPM, I believe?)... 2.5" enterprise disks let you have more smaller spindles in the same space (24-25 per 2U vs 12 for 3.5") for higher IO concurrency, and SAS supports multipathing (dual porting) for higher IO bandwidth, also SAS has tagged command queueing which often performs better than SATA NCQ under high IO concurrency workloads, like database servers.
These particular drives are enterprise SAS versions, but about as old as they made them.
-
John R Pierce -
Les Mikesell