Greg Smith wrote:
As for SCSI vs. SATA, I collected up the usual arguments on both sides
at http://www.postgresqldocs.org/index.php/SCSI_vs._IDE/SATA_Disks
Why do you claim that 'More platters also means slower seeks
and generally slower performance.'?
On the face of it, it should mean that
Why do you claim that 'More platters also means slower seeks
and generally slower performance.'?
More platters - more heads - heavier head assembly - slower seek time
But..
More platters - higher density - less seek distance (in mm of head
movement) - faster seek time
As
PFC wrote:
Why do you claim that 'More platters also means slower seeks
and generally slower performance.'?
More platters - more heads - heavier head assembly - slower
seek time
Note sure I've sen a lot of evidence of that in drive specifications!
Gigabyte should revamp their
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008, PFC wrote:
Why do you claim that 'More platters also means slower seeks
and generally slower performance.'?
More platters - more heads - heavier head assembly - slower seek
time
I recall seeing many designs with more platters that have slower seek
times in benchmarks,
Greg Smith wrote:
Gigabyte should revamp their i-RAM to use ECC RAM of a larger
capacity... and longer lasting battery backup...
I saw a rumor somewhere that they were close to having a new version of
that using DDR2 ready, which would make it pretty easy to have 8GB on
there.
I'm hoping
