This is one of those "it depends" things. As usual, it's good to build an intuition for what you expect. But it is also worthwhile benchmarking it now and again

This is one of those "it depends" things. As usual, it's good to build an intuition for what you expect. But it is also worthwhile benchmarking it now and again. At a previous job, we were pushing against going to "networked temp disk" instead of "local temp disk", on the assumption that local storage would be faster than remote storage. But, actual benchmarking showed that the "networked temp disk" was about two to three times faster. Mostly because almost all IOPS on each machine went to servicing network disk requests, so trying to squeeze in on one machine's IOPS caused IO stall times that trying to squeeze into N machines' IO queue didn't see. It's also a "are you mostly doing read consecutive blocks" or "are you doing essentially random, scattered reads" (for read workloads, write workloads are a bit different, as it is approaching hard top speculatively write data that has not yet passed through a write(2) call).