Could someone clarify in what situation you would want better access time over throughput?
I ask this question as a clarification of the following statement:
"Hitachi and Seagate still offer better access times, which is why Samsung does not dominate the I/O benchmarks"
from the article on this site (http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/21/samsung_overtakes_with_a_bang/page11.html) about the new F1 Samsung's.
Based on my knowledge I would say that access time is how quick it takes to find the data on the disk vs throughput is how much data it can more off the drive in a set time period.
My question is in terms of application...
If I had a database server with hundreds of records, or an e-mail server (which is essentially a DB of mail) then the higher access times would be better since I want to find records quickly and each record is relatively small.
However if I had many large files (video, music, graphics) then the larger throughput would be more important.
Is this a fairly accurate statement?
I am asking to determine what specific characteristics of a hard drive are the best for a particular environment.
Specifically I am building a VMWare server with a RAID5 array that will host a few virtual machines. The server will also be used for file storage (some large ISO files). Although a high throughput would be nice for file transfer, I would be more concerned with the overall functionality of the system to give the best performance for normal server operation (web server, exchange e-mail, etc).
So, in order to determine which drive is best for a given application, I would like to know what I should be looking at (access, latency, throughput, others?) and why one drive would theoretically perform better in a RAID environment for a VMserver, vs a file server, vs a gaming machine, etc.
Thank you for any information you can provide me!
I ask this question as a clarification of the following statement:
"Hitachi and Seagate still offer better access times, which is why Samsung does not dominate the I/O benchmarks"
from the article on this site (http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/21/samsung_overtakes_with_a_bang/page11.html) about the new F1 Samsung's.
Based on my knowledge I would say that access time is how quick it takes to find the data on the disk vs throughput is how much data it can more off the drive in a set time period.
My question is in terms of application...
If I had a database server with hundreds of records, or an e-mail server (which is essentially a DB of mail) then the higher access times would be better since I want to find records quickly and each record is relatively small.
However if I had many large files (video, music, graphics) then the larger throughput would be more important.
Is this a fairly accurate statement?
I am asking to determine what specific characteristics of a hard drive are the best for a particular environment.
Specifically I am building a VMWare server with a RAID5 array that will host a few virtual machines. The server will also be used for file storage (some large ISO files). Although a high throughput would be nice for file transfer, I would be more concerned with the overall functionality of the system to give the best performance for normal server operation (web server, exchange e-mail, etc).
So, in order to determine which drive is best for a given application, I would like to know what I should be looking at (access, latency, throughput, others?) and why one drive would theoretically perform better in a RAID environment for a VMserver, vs a file server, vs a gaming machine, etc.
Thank you for any information you can provide me!