Re: 1879 vs 1916 disk drive comparison -- MIDRANGE-L

Subject: Re: 1879 vs 1916 disk drive comparison
From: DrFranken <midrange@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 16:40:22 -0500
List-archive: <https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/options/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

How busy are the 15K Drives? If they are over 15% busy you will likely see a performance hit. If they are below 5% then likely not noticeable. However as always YMMV!

- Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis

www.Frankeni.com
www.iDevCloud.com - Personal Development IBM i timeshare service.
www.iInTheCloud.com - Commercial IBM i Cloud Hosting.

On 1/11/2019 2:53 PM, Jerry Draper wrote:

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 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.