It all depends on the workload that you want to perform across the volumes contained within those populations of drives.

You may, or may NOT see a difference. Reliability isnt a huge issue, since Raid-DP and an active support contract take care of the 100% failure rate that -all- hard drives eventually achieve.

If you remove the issues concerning raid groups sizing, if/how you use flex volumes, and directory sizes..Its all about balancing the cost of ATA against the IOPS benefit of FCAL.

-----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of John Clear Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 10:46 AM To: Michael Haller; toasters@mathworks.com Subject: RE: DS14MK2 with 300GB versus 144GB - question

I have about 800 300GB drives across a bunch of FAS980s and R200s and about 400 144GB drives across a bunch of F880s/FAS960s/FAS270s according to DFM.

Throughput seems fine, although I have done any specific benchmarks. The high density reduces space/power/cooling requirements, which has its own benefits.

John

-----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Michael Haller Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 2:33 AM To: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: DS14MK2 with 300GB versus 144GB - question

Hi,

Does anybody have any experience or comments on the use of a single DS14MK2 with 300GB drives versus two DS14MK2 with 144GB dirves. I would have thought that throughput, reliability and on-going costs would be better with the 144s.

Any comments or advice appreciated.

Ta,

- Michael