Ryfujk

Why is the design of haulage companies so “special”?

I’m planning on buying a laser printer but concerned about the life cycle of toner in the machine

Why can't I see bouncing of a switch on an oscilloscope?

A newer friend of my brother's gave him a load of baseball cards that are supposedly extremely valuable. Is this a scam?

Can a German sentence have two subjects?

What Brexit solution does the DUP want?

Extreme, but not acceptable situation and I can't start the work tomorrow morning

Why has Russell's definition of numbers using equivalence classes been finally abandoned? ( If it has actually been abandoned).

Are tax years 2016 & 2017 back taxes deductible for tax year 2018?

New order #4: World

How do we improve the relationship with a client software team that performs poorly and is becoming less collaborative?

Banach space and Hilbert space topology

What are these boxed doors outside store fronts in New York?

N.B. ligature in Latex

A Journey Through Space and Time

How did the USSR manage to innovate in an environment characterized by government censorship and high bureaucracy?

If Manufacturer spice model and Datasheet give different values which should I use?

Why was the small council so happy for Tyrion to become the Master of Coin?

How do I create uniquely male characters?

Is it possible to do 50 km distance without any previous training?

TGV timetables / schedules?

Is there a minimum number of transactions in a block?

Email Account under attack (really) - anything I can do?

How to calculate implied correlation via observed market price (Margrabe option)

HDD: performance differences between 7.2k SATA and 15k SAS

What are the merits of SAS vs SATA drives?connecting SATA SSDs to SASPerformance differences between 2.5“ vs. 3.5” SASsata and sas on the same machineSAS vs SATA vs SSD: How to measure performance difference between SATA and SAS?Nearline SAS on SATA controllersSAS or SATA for 3 TB drives?SAS vs Near-line SAS vs SATAConnecting SATA 3 to SAS port performance analysisPerformance Difference SAS vs. SATA?

.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}

8

5

What is the rule of thumb in performance characteristics and differences between 7200rpm (SATA/SAS) and 15000rpm (SAS) hard disc drives of the same generation?

performance sas sata

share|improve this question

edited 6 mins ago

ewwhite

174k78370725

asked May 31 '13 at 19:16

cnstcnst

7,63363654

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Why this question downvoted?
  
  – cnst
  May 31 '13 at 21:26
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Lots of information out there. 7.2k and 10k/15k disks are vastly different in capacity and performance. SAS versus SATA as well. You didn't give a specific example of workload requirements or a situation where a more concrete recommendation could apply.
  
  – ewwhite
  Jun 9 '13 at 8:40
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  heh, so funny -- 10k views, yet +3/-2 = 1 net vote!
  
  – cnst
  Dec 25 '14 at 4:04
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

8

5

What is the rule of thumb in performance characteristics and differences between 7200rpm (SATA/SAS) and 15000rpm (SAS) hard disc drives of the same generation?

performance sas sata

share|improve this question

edited 6 mins ago

ewwhite

174k78370725

asked May 31 '13 at 19:16

cnstcnst

7,63363654

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Why this question downvoted?
  
  – cnst
  May 31 '13 at 21:26
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Lots of information out there. 7.2k and 10k/15k disks are vastly different in capacity and performance. SAS versus SATA as well. You didn't give a specific example of workload requirements or a situation where a more concrete recommendation could apply.
  
  – ewwhite
  Jun 9 '13 at 8:40
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  heh, so funny -- 10k views, yet +3/-2 = 1 net vote!
  
  – cnst
  Dec 25 '14 at 4:04
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

What is the rule of thumb in performance characteristics and differences between 7200rpm (SATA/SAS) and 15000rpm (SAS) hard disc drives of the same generation?

performance sas sata

share|improve this question

edited 6 mins ago

ewwhite

174k78370725

asked May 31 '13 at 19:16

cnstcnst

7,63363654

share|improve this question

edited 6 mins ago

ewwhite

174k78370725

asked May 31 '13 at 19:16

cnstcnst

7,63363654

share|improve this question

edited 6 mins ago

ewwhite

174k78370725

asked May 31 '13 at 19:16

cnstcnst

7,63363654

edited 6 mins ago

ewwhite

174k78370725

edited 6 mins ago

ewwhite

174k78370725

asked May 31 '13 at 19:16

cnstcnst

7,63363654

asked May 31 '13 at 19:16

cnstcnst

7,63363654

3 Answers
3

active

oldest

votes

13

It's a case of math. I/O-per-second is determined by the following calculation:

Random I/O = 1000/ (average latency + seek time)

For a 7.2K RPM drive, a seek-time of 8.5ms and latency of 4.16 gives an IOPS number of 78.

For a 15K RPM drive, a seek-time of 2.6ms and latency of 2.0ms gives an IOPS number of 217 .

For a 15K RPM drive, a seek-time of 3.4ms and latency of 2.0ms gives an IOPS number of 185.

These are just examples based on a selection of current (as of this writing) drives from Seagate.

Interface (SAS vs SATA) doesn't impact these numbers meaningfully. The RPMs are what determine the performance. Sequential I/O performance is a different number, but most server I/O these days is significantly random.

As you can see, the performance difference between the two tiers of speed can be quite significant.

share|improve this answer

edited May 31 '13 at 19:58

answered May 31 '13 at 19:30

sysadmin1138♦sysadmin1138

117k17145282

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  So, sequential reads/writes don't depend on the RPM much?
  
  – cnst
  May 31 '13 at 19:39
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @cnst Nope. They don't.
  
  – ewwhite
  May 31 '13 at 19:40
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @cnst It does, but it depends a lot on the drive itself. The 7.5K I used above maxes out at 115MB/s, where the second 15K is listed as a range from 122-204 MB/s. Random I/O is where the big differences are.
  
  – sysadmin1138♦
  May 31 '13 at 19:43
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  We usually use 180 IOPS as a rule of thumb for a 15k disk, just remember that if you are using RAID you have to divide that (raid 10 is 180 read IOPs, 90 write IOPS, or 1:2... raid 5 is 1:4, raid 6 is 1:8 if I remember correctly).
  
  – Matthew
  May 31 '13 at 20:21
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @cnst Seems manufacturers won't publish seek/access figures on 5.4k drives. It seems the WD Red drive (4TB 3.5" 5.4k) tests at 16.38 ms read and 7.36 ms write latency (which somehow includes 5.52 ms rotational latency). By the formula, this will produce 61 read IOPS and 136 write IOPS. If you want to know specs for a particular drive, you should expect it to be benchmarked somewhere, and look it up. With a queue depth of 32, the drive can pull >140 IOPS in a mixed read/write pattern.
  
  – jbo5112
  Nov 16 '16 at 0:07
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 4 more comments

4

In short, they have different characteristics and purposes...

7200rpm disks are bigger and slower. 10000rpm and 15000rpm disks are smaller and faster. The latter are meant for high transactional and high random I/O workloads. The former are better for sequential transfer and high capacity requirements.

From HP's documentation:

HP Entry (SATA 7.2k) drives have the lowest unit cost and give you a basic level of reliability and performance. They are best suited for non-mission-critical environments where I/O workloads are 40 percent or less. They are typically best suited for internal/archival storage or as boot drives for entry-level servers.

HP Midline (SAS 7.2k) drives give you larger capacity and greater reliability than Entry drives. Midline drives are more resistant to rotational and operational vibration, so they are better suited for use in multi-drive configurations. HP Midline drives are for high-capacity applications such as external storage that may require increased reliability. Like Entry drives, however, Midline drives are for use in moderate workload environments. We do not recommend Entry or Midline drives for mission-critical applications.

HP Enterprise (SAS 10k/15k) drives give you maximum reliability, highest performance, scalability, and error management under the most demanding conditions. They are the only HP drives designed for use at unconstrained I/O workloads. They are for mission-critical applications such as large databases, e-mail servers, and back-office.

---

share|improve this answer

edited Jun 9 '13 at 8:56

answered May 31 '13 at 19:25

ewwhiteewwhite

174k78370725

add a comment | 

1

From a value point of view, one can often get better real world performance out of more SATA 7.2k drives than fewer SAS 15k drives with the price being similar. You'll notice that larger buildouts like Backblaze use SATA and that's because the value is so much better and if you use multiple SATA drives, the performance can match for typical storage loads.

share|improve this answer

answered Aug 26 '13 at 12:38

Adam NelsonAdam Nelson

6092911

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "2"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f512386%2fhdd-performance-differences-between-7-2k-sata-and-15k-sas%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

13

It's a case of math. I/O-per-second is determined by the following calculation:

Random I/O = 1000/ (average latency + seek time)

For a 7.2K RPM drive, a seek-time of 8.5ms and latency of 4.16 gives an IOPS number of 78.

For a 15K RPM drive, a seek-time of 2.6ms and latency of 2.0ms gives an IOPS number of 217 .

For a 15K RPM drive, a seek-time of 3.4ms and latency of 2.0ms gives an IOPS number of 185.

These are just examples based on a selection of current (as of this writing) drives from Seagate.

Interface (SAS vs SATA) doesn't impact these numbers meaningfully. The RPMs are what determine the performance. Sequential I/O performance is a different number, but most server I/O these days is significantly random.

As you can see, the performance difference between the two tiers of speed can be quite significant.

share|improve this answer

edited May 31 '13 at 19:58

answered May 31 '13 at 19:30

sysadmin1138♦sysadmin1138

117k17145282

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  So, sequential reads/writes don't depend on the RPM much?
  
  – cnst
  May 31 '13 at 19:39
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @cnst Nope. They don't.
  
  – ewwhite
  May 31 '13 at 19:40
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @cnst It does, but it depends a lot on the drive itself. The 7.5K I used above maxes out at 115MB/s, where the second 15K is listed as a range from 122-204 MB/s. Random I/O is where the big differences are.
  
  – sysadmin1138♦
  May 31 '13 at 19:43
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  We usually use 180 IOPS as a rule of thumb for a 15k disk, just remember that if you are using RAID you have to divide that (raid 10 is 180 read IOPs, 90 write IOPS, or 1:2... raid 5 is 1:4, raid 6 is 1:8 if I remember correctly).
  
  – Matthew
  May 31 '13 at 20:21
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @cnst Seems manufacturers won't publish seek/access figures on 5.4k drives. It seems the WD Red drive (4TB 3.5" 5.4k) tests at 16.38 ms read and 7.36 ms write latency (which somehow includes 5.52 ms rotational latency). By the formula, this will produce 61 read IOPS and 136 write IOPS. If you want to know specs for a particular drive, you should expect it to be benchmarked somewhere, and look it up. With a queue depth of 32, the drive can pull >140 IOPS in a mixed read/write pattern.
  
  – jbo5112
  Nov 16 '16 at 0:07
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 4 more comments

13

It's a case of math. I/O-per-second is determined by the following calculation:

Random I/O = 1000/ (average latency + seek time)

For a 7.2K RPM drive, a seek-time of 8.5ms and latency of 4.16 gives an IOPS number of 78.

For a 15K RPM drive, a seek-time of 2.6ms and latency of 2.0ms gives an IOPS number of 217 .

For a 15K RPM drive, a seek-time of 3.4ms and latency of 2.0ms gives an IOPS number of 185.

These are just examples based on a selection of current (as of this writing) drives from Seagate.

Interface (SAS vs SATA) doesn't impact these numbers meaningfully. The RPMs are what determine the performance. Sequential I/O performance is a different number, but most server I/O these days is significantly random.

As you can see, the performance difference between the two tiers of speed can be quite significant.

share|improve this answer

edited May 31 '13 at 19:58

answered May 31 '13 at 19:30

sysadmin1138♦sysadmin1138

117k17145282

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  So, sequential reads/writes don't depend on the RPM much?
  
  – cnst
  May 31 '13 at 19:39
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @cnst Nope. They don't.
  
  – ewwhite
  May 31 '13 at 19:40
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @cnst It does, but it depends a lot on the drive itself. The 7.5K I used above maxes out at 115MB/s, where the second 15K is listed as a range from 122-204 MB/s. Random I/O is where the big differences are.
  
  – sysadmin1138♦
  May 31 '13 at 19:43
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  We usually use 180 IOPS as a rule of thumb for a 15k disk, just remember that if you are using RAID you have to divide that (raid 10 is 180 read IOPs, 90 write IOPS, or 1:2... raid 5 is 1:4, raid 6 is 1:8 if I remember correctly).
  
  – Matthew
  May 31 '13 at 20:21
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @cnst Seems manufacturers won't publish seek/access figures on 5.4k drives. It seems the WD Red drive (4TB 3.5" 5.4k) tests at 16.38 ms read and 7.36 ms write latency (which somehow includes 5.52 ms rotational latency). By the formula, this will produce 61 read IOPS and 136 write IOPS. If you want to know specs for a particular drive, you should expect it to be benchmarked somewhere, and look it up. With a queue depth of 32, the drive can pull >140 IOPS in a mixed read/write pattern.
  
  – jbo5112
  Nov 16 '16 at 0:07
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 4 more comments

It's a case of math. I/O-per-second is determined by the following calculation:

Random I/O = 1000/ (average latency + seek time)

For a 7.2K RPM drive, a seek-time of 8.5ms and latency of 4.16 gives an IOPS number of 78.

For a 15K RPM drive, a seek-time of 2.6ms and latency of 2.0ms gives an IOPS number of 217 .

For a 15K RPM drive, a seek-time of 3.4ms and latency of 2.0ms gives an IOPS number of 185.

These are just examples based on a selection of current (as of this writing) drives from Seagate.

Interface (SAS vs SATA) doesn't impact these numbers meaningfully. The RPMs are what determine the performance. Sequential I/O performance is a different number, but most server I/O these days is significantly random.

As you can see, the performance difference between the two tiers of speed can be quite significant.

share|improve this answer

edited May 31 '13 at 19:58

answered May 31 '13 at 19:30

sysadmin1138♦sysadmin1138

117k17145282

share|improve this answer

edited May 31 '13 at 19:58

answered May 31 '13 at 19:30

sysadmin1138♦sysadmin1138

117k17145282

answered May 31 '13 at 19:30

sysadmin1138♦sysadmin1138

117k17145282

answered May 31 '13 at 19:30

sysadmin1138♦sysadmin1138

117k17145282

4

In short, they have different characteristics and purposes...

7200rpm disks are bigger and slower. 10000rpm and 15000rpm disks are smaller and faster. The latter are meant for high transactional and high random I/O workloads. The former are better for sequential transfer and high capacity requirements.

From HP's documentation:

HP Entry (SATA 7.2k) drives have the lowest unit cost and give you a basic level of reliability and performance. They are best suited for non-mission-critical environments where I/O workloads are 40 percent or less. They are typically best suited for internal/archival storage or as boot drives for entry-level servers.

HP Midline (SAS 7.2k) drives give you larger capacity and greater reliability than Entry drives. Midline drives are more resistant to rotational and operational vibration, so they are better suited for use in multi-drive configurations. HP Midline drives are for high-capacity applications such as external storage that may require increased reliability. Like Entry drives, however, Midline drives are for use in moderate workload environments. We do not recommend Entry or Midline drives for mission-critical applications.

HP Enterprise (SAS 10k/15k) drives give you maximum reliability, highest performance, scalability, and error management under the most demanding conditions. They are the only HP drives designed for use at unconstrained I/O workloads. They are for mission-critical applications such as large databases, e-mail servers, and back-office.

---

share|improve this answer

edited Jun 9 '13 at 8:56

answered May 31 '13 at 19:25

ewwhiteewwhite

174k78370725

add a comment | 

4

In short, they have different characteristics and purposes...

7200rpm disks are bigger and slower. 10000rpm and 15000rpm disks are smaller and faster. The latter are meant for high transactional and high random I/O workloads. The former are better for sequential transfer and high capacity requirements.

From HP's documentation:

HP Entry (SATA 7.2k) drives have the lowest unit cost and give you a basic level of reliability and performance. They are best suited for non-mission-critical environments where I/O workloads are 40 percent or less. They are typically best suited for internal/archival storage or as boot drives for entry-level servers.

HP Midline (SAS 7.2k) drives give you larger capacity and greater reliability than Entry drives. Midline drives are more resistant to rotational and operational vibration, so they are better suited for use in multi-drive configurations. HP Midline drives are for high-capacity applications such as external storage that may require increased reliability. Like Entry drives, however, Midline drives are for use in moderate workload environments. We do not recommend Entry or Midline drives for mission-critical applications.

HP Enterprise (SAS 10k/15k) drives give you maximum reliability, highest performance, scalability, and error management under the most demanding conditions. They are the only HP drives designed for use at unconstrained I/O workloads. They are for mission-critical applications such as large databases, e-mail servers, and back-office.

---

share|improve this answer

edited Jun 9 '13 at 8:56

answered May 31 '13 at 19:25

ewwhiteewwhite

174k78370725

add a comment | 

In short, they have different characteristics and purposes...

7200rpm disks are bigger and slower. 10000rpm and 15000rpm disks are smaller and faster. The latter are meant for high transactional and high random I/O workloads. The former are better for sequential transfer and high capacity requirements.

From HP's documentation:

HP Entry (SATA 7.2k) drives have the lowest unit cost and give you a basic level of reliability and performance. They are best suited for non-mission-critical environments where I/O workloads are 40 percent or less. They are typically best suited for internal/archival storage or as boot drives for entry-level servers.

HP Midline (SAS 7.2k) drives give you larger capacity and greater reliability than Entry drives. Midline drives are more resistant to rotational and operational vibration, so they are better suited for use in multi-drive configurations. HP Midline drives are for high-capacity applications such as external storage that may require increased reliability. Like Entry drives, however, Midline drives are for use in moderate workload environments. We do not recommend Entry or Midline drives for mission-critical applications.

HP Enterprise (SAS 10k/15k) drives give you maximum reliability, highest performance, scalability, and error management under the most demanding conditions. They are the only HP drives designed for use at unconstrained I/O workloads. They are for mission-critical applications such as large databases, e-mail servers, and back-office.

---

share|improve this answer

edited Jun 9 '13 at 8:56

answered May 31 '13 at 19:25

ewwhiteewwhite

174k78370725

share|improve this answer

edited Jun 9 '13 at 8:56

answered May 31 '13 at 19:25

ewwhiteewwhite

174k78370725

answered May 31 '13 at 19:25

ewwhiteewwhite

174k78370725

answered May 31 '13 at 19:25

ewwhiteewwhite

174k78370725

1

From a value point of view, one can often get better real world performance out of more SATA 7.2k drives than fewer SAS 15k drives with the price being similar. You'll notice that larger buildouts like Backblaze use SATA and that's because the value is so much better and if you use multiple SATA drives, the performance can match for typical storage loads.

share|improve this answer

answered Aug 26 '13 at 12:38

Adam NelsonAdam Nelson

6092911

add a comment | 

1

From a value point of view, one can often get better real world performance out of more SATA 7.2k drives than fewer SAS 15k drives with the price being similar. You'll notice that larger buildouts like Backblaze use SATA and that's because the value is so much better and if you use multiple SATA drives, the performance can match for typical storage loads.

share|improve this answer

answered Aug 26 '13 at 12:38

Adam NelsonAdam Nelson

6092911

add a comment | 

From a value point of view, one can often get better real world performance out of more SATA 7.2k drives than fewer SAS 15k drives with the price being similar. You'll notice that larger buildouts like Backblaze use SATA and that's because the value is so much better and if you use multiple SATA drives, the performance can match for typical storage loads.

share|improve this answer

answered Aug 26 '13 at 12:38

Adam NelsonAdam Nelson

6092911

share|improve this answer

answered Aug 26 '13 at 12:38

Adam NelsonAdam Nelson

6092911

answered Aug 26 '13 at 12:38

Adam NelsonAdam Nelson

6092911

answered Aug 26 '13 at 12:38

Adam NelsonAdam Nelson

6092911