SAS and SATA Ramdom IOPS in Exchange Calc 2019 change vs Exchange Calc 2016

%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-2401392%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ESAS%20and%20SATA%20Ramdom%20IOPS%20in%20Exchange%20Calc%202019%20change%20vs%20Exchange%20Calc%202016%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-2401392%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3EHi%2C%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3EI%20am%20using%20Exchange%202019%20v10-5%20calculator.%20On%20all%20v10%20versions%20I%20see%20a%20difference%20in%20the%20IOPS%20table%20of%20disks%20(in%20the%20Hidden%20Table%20tab).%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3EThe%20random%20IOPS%20for%20the%20SATA%207.2K%203.5%20%22drive%20and%20for%20the%20SAS%207.2K%203.5%22%20drive%20are%20now%20at%20100%20(%20sequential%20IOPS%20are%20still%20at%20300)%20vs%20the%20same%20table%20in%20Exchange%202016%20v9.1%20where%20they%20are%20at%2055%20IOPS%20and%2057.5%20IOPS%20respectively.%20Have%20these%20drives%20doubled%20their%20random%20IOPS%20capacity%20over%20the%20past%20few%20years%3F%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3EThis%20radically%20changes%20the%20number%20of%20discs%20needed.%20Are%20there%20any%20explanations%3F%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3EThank%20you%2C%3CBR%20%2F%3ELaurent.%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-LABS%20id%3D%22lingo-labs-2401392%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CLINGO-LABEL%3E2019%3C%2FLINGO-LABEL%3E%3CLINGO-LABEL%3EExchange%20Server%3C%2FLINGO-LABEL%3E%3C%2FLINGO-LABS%3E
New Contributor

Hi,

 

I am using Exchange 2019 v10-5 calculator. On all v10 versions I see a difference in the IOPS table of disks (in the Hidden Table tab).

 

The random IOPS for the SATA 7.2K 3.5 "drive and for the SAS 7.2K 3.5" drive are now at 100 ( sequential IOPS are still at 300) vs the same table in Exchange 2016 v9.1 where they are at 55 IOPS and 57.5 IOPS respectively. Have these drives doubled their random IOPS capacity over the past few years?

 

This radically changes the number of discs needed. Are there any explanations?

 

Thank you,
Laurent.

0 Replies