Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 19:46:05 -0500 (CDT) From: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com> To: richards@herald.net Cc: isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: INN drive configuration Message-ID: <199609170046.TAA06779@brasil.moneng.mei.com> In-Reply-To: <323DC627.756B@herald.net> from "Richard Stanford" at Sep 16, 96 02:27:03 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I'm currently setting up a dedicated news machine running 2.1.5-R, and > have a quick question to some of the other people here: > > For every 4GB of data storage on the box, would you recommend 1 4GB 7200 > RPM drive (Barracuda) or 2 2GB 5400 RPM drives (Hawk)? I realize that I > should spread the data between as many disks as possible, and also make > sure that those disks are as fast as possible, and would like to hear > opinions as to which factor is more important. 2 2GB drives will be faster than 1 4GB drive... as long as the average head seek time is reasonably similar. The Barra's are 8ms drives and the Hawks are 9ms drives... I usually consider that the two Hawks will not be equivalent to a 4.5ms drive (9ms / 2 drives) but more like 6ms average. Ideally you could even shy away from the 2GB drives and go for the 31055N's (1GB Hawk Ultra) ... they are faster at some operations than the Barra's. You might want to go look through the mailing list archives, I have gone on and on about this sort of stuff in the past... > This machine will have 1 (maybe 2) full-ish incoming feeds, and feed > several shell accounts on one machine along with dialup users. If it > makes a difference. I'm also on a bit of a budget setting it up, which > is why I've identified my $/GB limit and am now looking at the choices > within that constraint. Power, cooling, etc are not going to be issues. > > TIA! > > -Richard >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609170046.TAA06779>