James - Thanks for the input. I guess I should have mentioned that the server is for videos, Blu-ray, DVD and television. Although the videos are stored on 3.5" 7200 and 5900 (an maybe some 5400) rpm spindle drives. The faster drives are for the OS, so I guess your observation as far as SSDs outperforming spindles would still stand.
Back to the drawing board. I was trying to transfer the image made from the 15k SAS to the SSDs. Maybe I just need to start over! Again, thanks. Jim Maki jwm_maill...@comcast.net -----Original Message----- From: Hardware [mailto:hardware-boun...@lists.hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of James Boswell Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2017 8:16 AM To: hardw...@lists.hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] Hard drive/SSD/rotations speed Not to put too fine a point on it, the SSD will utterly destroy all of the spindles for random accesses, which almost all workloads outside of archival work and big media processing are. SSD on 3Gbps will feel much faster even if it's being bottlenecked from its absolute peak performance. On 3 August 2017 at 15:51, Jim Maki <jwm_maill...@comcast.net> wrote: > I have a refurbished HP DL380 G6 server with SAS controller. The SAS > controller communicates with a SAS drive at 6 GB and a SATA drive at 3 GB. > I > have a selection of 15k, 10k, and 7.2k rotational SAS drives (2.5") > and a SATA SSD (Samsung 850 EVO). My question is on the relative > access times for the various drives I have available. > > > > Can I expect the 15k hard drive to be the faster of the SAS drives, > but how is it going to compare with the SATA SSD at half the speed (6 GB vs 3 > GB). > I > have run into a problem trying to install the OS on the SSDs and am > trying to determine if the effort is not worth the time for the > potential performance gain. Also, I read somewhere that the iops of > the controller will be exceeded by the SSD, causing a bottleneck. > > > > Your thoughts would be appreciated. > > > > Jim Maki > > jwm_maill...@comcast.net > >
