300GB vs 900GB 10k 2.5 hard drives

We started off using 300GB 10k 2.5 hard drives.  Looking back now we wish we would have started bigger with 600 or even 900GB drives.  Is there a performance difference between a 300GB 10K drive and a 900GGB 10K drive?

0 Kudos
2 Replies

Re: 300GB vs 900GB 10k 2.5 hard drives

Hello lumeanatti,

With 900gb drives you may see a little performance hit at first.  But depending on your san if you have caching enabled then i don’t believe you will be able to see the difference.  

Please let us know if you have any other questions.

Dell | Social Outreach Services - Enterprise
Download the Dell Quick Resource Locator app today to access PowerEdge support content on your mobile device! (iOS, Android, Windows)

0 Kudos
Dev Mgr

Re: 300GB vs 900GB 10k 2.5 hard drives

IOPS wise the drives will be pretty much the same performance. A different disk cache size may make a small impact and the higher data density may increase sequential read/write speed.

Overall you'd just get about the same performance.

The thing to keep in mind though is that if you get 3 times larger drives, you'll probably put 3 times as much data on there and that means usually more IO. So if your drives are currently nearly maxed in the IOPS that they can do, larger drives is not the best choice (instead you go with more or faster drives).

Member since 2003

0 Kudos