Index: [Article Count Order] [Thread]

Date:  Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:00:39 -0500
From:  "Gerald Waugh" <gwaugh (at mark)>
Subject:  [coba-e:12705] Re: hard drive selection question
To:  <coba-e (at mark)>
Message-Id:  <030b01c8aa1a$9094c680$0101a8c0@systemax>
In-Reply-To:  <0f6101c8aa10$ae01eea0$6601a8c0@OfficeKen>
X-Mail-Count: 12705

Ken Marcus wrote Tuesday, April 29, 2008 10:50 AM
> I have been getting the Sata II 500 GB drives for the new 
> servers. But, I don't really need all that space.
> Has anyone tried the Western Digital Raptor 150GB SATA 10K 
> RPM   drives, and 
> are they any better?

We tested the Raptor, but as they have 1.5Gb/s access speed, we found
wd drives with 3 Gb/s to be faster in test we ran.
We settled on the WD2500AAKS and also use WD2500AAJS.
The KS has 16MB cache and the JS has 8MB cache. 
We found the hard drive cache size made very little diff.

  mkdir /home/test
  cd /home/test
  time tar -czpsvf usr.tgz /usr

The test exercises the CPU and (I/O) hard drive access.
And gives you the time to run the test process.


This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.