On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 18:22, Toni Mueller wrote: > On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 11:45:21PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote: > > When you've had a repair-man from the vendor use a hammer to install a > > CPU you learn to accept that any hardware can be broken no matter how > > well it's installed. > > did he also use a chainsaw to cut his finger nails?
I wish he would use a chainsaw to shave... > > Yes. However for bulk IO it's rotational speed multiplied by the number > > of sectors per track. A 5400rpm IDE disk with capacity 160G will > > probably perform better for bulk IO than a 10,000rpm SCSI disk with > > capacity 36G for this reason. > > The average application for most people is decidedly _not_ to have > bulk I/O, but large numbers of very small I/O operations. Like on > a news server, a mail server (using maildir), your typical web server > etc. Imho the seek times in SCSI drives is faster not only due to > rotational speed, but also because of more powerful arm moving > motors. When you get a medium sized server from Sun it'll probably have at least 4 fast-ethernet ports and a disk array that can barely sustain 40MB/s. Even for straight file-serving bulk IO can become a bottleneck on such a system. If you use a small part of a large drive you get better average access times. If you buy two * 160G ATA 7200 drives and use the first 18G of each of them in a RAID-0 then you should get better performance than a single 10K rpm SCSI drive can deliver (and it'll cost less from the first online computer store I found in google). -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
