Sonic Wallpaper
Joined: 05/22/01
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1266
|
|
Happy Happy Joy Joy... new Hard Drive!
Wednesday, September 24, 2008 at 7:19 PM
|
Quote
Top Bottom
|
I'm pleased to announce we have outgrown our current hardware, so I had to upgrade and purchase a new drive for the main server.
Since performance and smooth streaming is extremely important, I went all out and bought...
a 146GB SCSI drive that spins at 15k RPM, has a average latency of 2 ms, 16MB cache, and average Read/Write time of 3.5/4.0 ms.
Our previous drives were also high performance - each spinning at 10k RPM. Standard drives spin at 7.2k RPM.
|
|
|
A Bit Crusher
Joined: 01/26/02
Location: Tilburg
Posts: 1794
|
|
RE: Happy Happy Joy Joy... new Hard Drive!
Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 1:59 PM
|
Quote
Top Bottom
|
|
|
|
Kylo
Joined: 02/16/05
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 787
|
|
RE: Happy Happy Joy Joy... new Hard Drive!
Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 2:54 PM
|
Quote
Top Bottom
|
Cheers Gideon! 
Let us know if you need help with raising funds.
"Energizer bunny arrested- charged with battery."
|
|
|
A Bit Crusher
Joined: 01/26/02
Location: Tilburg
Posts: 1794
|
|
RE: Happy Happy Joy Joy... new Hard Drive!
Friday, September 26, 2008 at 11:13 AM
|
Quote
Top Bottom
|
Now let's fill that drive....
|
|
|
Kylo
Joined: 02/16/05
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 787
|
|
RE: Happy Happy Joy Joy... new Hard Drive!
Friday, September 26, 2008 at 2:43 PM
|
Quote
Top Bottom
|
"Energizer bunny arrested- charged with battery."
|
|
|
Subtronik
Joined: 01/14/03
Posts: 1193
|
|
RE: Happy Happy Joy Joy... new Hard Drive!
Sunday, September 28, 2008 at 7:13 PM
|
Quote
Top Bottom
|
Nice
My friend just bought a 10k drive and said it transfered 4GB instantly, without delay 
I would of bought 10k drives on my recent purchase from newegg, but the max capacity right now is only 300GB, and I need at least 600GB. I'll just wait till next year when they are bigger and cheaper.
|
|
|
Subtronik
Joined: 01/14/03
Posts: 1193
|
|
RE: Happy Happy Joy Joy... new Hard Drive!
Sunday, October 12, 2008 at 8:19 AM
|
Quote
Top Bottom
|
Seems that some think that 10k is actually faster than 15k:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=322
...or am I missing something here? 
|
|
|
Sonic Wallpaper
Joined: 05/22/01
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1266
|
|
RE: Happy Happy Joy Joy... new Hard Drive!
Sunday, October 12, 2008 at 12:01 PM
|
Quote
Top Bottom
|
Interesting article - but it's from 2006 and one of the main references is to an article from 2004.
All the text in that article should have been supported w/ an actual benchmark test comparing the setups being referred to, and a table listing the results and info as to what type of benchmark was done - specifically this information needs a real study, not theory:
Quote:This means we could partial stroke the hard drive (this is official storage terminology) and get much better performance levels at the same storage capacity. The top 150 GB portion of the 10K drive could be used for performance while the second 150 GB portion of the 10K drive could be used for off-peak archival and data mirroring. Because we’re partial stroking the drive using data partitions, we can effectively cut the average seek time in half to 2.15 ms. This means the average access time of the hard drive is cut to 5.15 ms which is actually better than the 15K RPM hard drive!
The 15k drive I picked up results in a 5.7 ms access time for the whole drive, so according to this partitioning idea, the access time on the 15k drive would equally improve, but for some reason, the guy doesn't even address what the performance is on partitioning the 15k drive.
This article also doesn't address asynchronous reads from various sources, so a proper test would have to simulate a server environment like ours where we have between 1-150 simultaneous users are reading and writing data.
It's definitely worth looking into, but I'd need to see a real study done with drives on the market today where the same tests are done on all drives in the study with no reliance on math theory. The 10k drive may very well be the better drive in a when considering performance and cost.
To be honest, I wish I didn't have to pay any attention to hardware - it is my least favorite part of running Websites. I hope we can grow someday and be able to afford managed services.
For the desktop - I'm sure 10k will be perfect for nearly everyone, especially if the price is better. Probably 98% of us do multi-track recording on 7.2k drives, and I never see ppl complaining about it.
|
|
|
Subtronik
Joined: 01/14/03
Posts: 1193
|
|
RE: Happy Happy Joy Joy... new Hard Drive!
Sunday, October 12, 2008 at 1:04 PM
|
Quote
Top Bottom
|
Sonic Wallpaper wrote:To be honest, I wish I didn't have to pay any attention to hardware
I'm with you there man, the new rig I'm building is turning into a headache. It took a day to research RAID because of the differing opinions.
I've got two new 10K SATA 3.0 drives and have been trying to figure out the most efficient way to use them for a week now.
I also just discovered that the 'outer edge' of any hard drive is the fastest part, so a partition of at least 20GB for the OS on that will run faster/smoother.
|
|
|
