If you want to reduce average and worst-case latency, you really need some kind of solid state storage.
Could be SSD, or just battery-backed-up RAM. On 02/19/2014 09:08 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (lopser) wrote: >> From: Adam Levin [mailto:[email protected]] >> >> While this is the first time I've ever heard that 7.2k benchmark the same as >> 15k, I do know that 10k 2.5" benchmark nearly identically to 15k 3.5", mostly >> because of the smaller diameter reducing the rotational latency. > I think you meant smaller diameter reducing head seek time, not rotational > latency. (Rotational latency would depend on rpm's and not diameter, while > the head seek would be dependent on diameter, and not rpm's.) > > While I recognize the intuitiveness of smaller diameter --> less distance to > travel, seems to be common sense that the average head seek time should be > smaller, but I have not observed that to be the case when looking at seek > times of various sized disks (2.5" vs 3.5"). I *suspect* that the head seek > time is not so much limited by the distance it needs to travel, as it is, > microdetecting position, vibration/oscillation stabilization, and locking > onto a track. But I'm only making this guess, based on my perception that > the average seek times of 2.5" vs 3.5" disks are approximately the same. > _______________________________________________ > 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/ -- Alan Robertson <[email protected]> - @OSSAlanR "Openness is the foundation and preservative of friendship... Let me claim from you at all times your undisguised opinions." - William Wilberforce _______________________________________________ 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/
