On 02/18/2014 10:06 PM, Ski Kacoroski wrote: > Hi, > > We are putting in a very large application based on MS SQL and the > vendor is insisting that we use 12 15k 600GB disks in a raid 10 > configuration. Our standard is 10k disks so I would like to use 24 10k > disks in raid 10 so I can use existing hot spares. This supplies more > iops, more bandwidth; but the vendor is still insisting on 15k disks as > they think SQL will have write stalls. > > Am I missing anything here where the 12 15K disks would be better then > 24 10k disks? Could the latency be less with the 15k disks? I really > am trying to understand if there is a valid reason the vendor is so set > on the 15K disks other than 'we have always done it that way and it > worked'.
It really depends - while 24 10K disks will give you more concurrency and throughput, it won't be able to beat the single-operation latency of 15K disks. Skylar _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
