I agree with you if the seek times are different. But assuming that they are similar, I think that drive B will have more throughput after defragmentation.
Bobby -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of warpmedia Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 2:29 PM To: The Hardware List Subject: Re: [H] More defrag results If drive A (the slower) has a slower SEEK time than drive B (the faster), then drive A should be MORE affected by fragmentation than drive B, not less. Further, Drive A should be even more affected by fragmentation since it combines longer seeks with slower transfers. I guess seek could be moot if you're talking a few ms difference + factor in the caching algorithm, but then it's raw throughput that would make drive B faster after defragmenting. Ouch, headaches can form quick contemplating the variables. Too bad there's no synthetic benchmark to test fragmentation effects. Bobby Heid wrote: > I would think so. Because the delay in speed is the movement of the > heads. So in your example, drive A (the slower one) can only move x > amount of data in a given amount of time. The fragmentation causes a > more or less constant (for a given fragmentation scenario) time for > head movement. So drive B, which has a higher transfer rate due to > the higher RPM, can move more data in a given amount of time. > Therefore, if you take away the fragmentation, it will have a greater > benefit from not being fragmented. > > Sorry for the rambling answer. Wasn't sure how to express what I was > thinking. LOL. > > Bobby >
