On Dec 22, 2009, at 10:14 PM, John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote:
Ross Walker wrote:
Also, for random IO the opposite is true, the rotational latency is
significantly smaller on the inner tracks than the outer tracks, so
random OPs perform better there.
um, most all hard disks are
On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 09:37 -0500, Ross Walker wrote:
snip
I think you might be confusing CAV with CLV of optical drives.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_Angular_Velocity
-Ross
That was my thought. However, I think most are missing the boat on this.
I have always looked at the
On 12/23/2009 07:29 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
Ross Walker wrote:
I think you might be confusing CAV with CLV of optical drives.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_Angular_Velocity
no, I'm not. most HD's ('green drives' complicate this some) spin at
a constant RPM, so the
Timo Schoeler wrote:
On 12/23/2009 07:29 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
Ross Walker wrote:
I think you might be confusing CAV with CLV of optical drives.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_Angular_Velocity
no, I'm not. most HD's ('green drives' complicate this some) spin at
a
On Dec 23, 2009, at 1:29 PM, John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote:
Ross Walker wrote:
I think you might be confusing CAV with CLV of optical drives.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_Angular_Velocity
no, I'm not. most HD's ('green drives' complicate this some)
spin at
a
On 12/23/2009 08:15 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Timo Schoeler wrote:
On 12/23/2009 07:29 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
Ross Walker wrote:
I think you might be confusing CAV with CLV of optical drives.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_Angular_Velocity
no, I'm not. most HD's ('green
Timo Schoeler wrote:
But these days, nothing should ever be reading from swap, although you
might write a bit there. If it does, buy some more RAM instead of
worrying about disk performance.
Sure, absolutely no question; *but* in the (ancient) times it was
important, it was 'nice'
Hi,
Does mount point specification while partitioning (order in which I
specify /, /boot, swap etc..) affect performance? I am not sure about
the syntax, but I guess one can also specify address/block range while
partitioning. Does it affect IO performance? Probably a stupid
question, but just
Carlos Santana wrote:
Hi,
Does mount point specification while partitioning (order in which I
specify /, /boot, swap etc..) affect performance? I am not sure about
the syntax, but I guess one can also specify address/block range while
partitioning. Does it affect IO performance? Probably a
On Dec 22, 2009, at 6:13 PM, Robert Nichols
rnicholsnos...@comcast.net wrote:
Carlos Santana wrote:
Hi,
Does mount point specification while partitioning (order in which I
specify /, /boot, swap etc..) affect performance? I am not sure about
the syntax, but I guess one can also specify
Ross Walker wrote:
Also, for random IO the opposite is true, the rotational latency is
significantly smaller on the inner tracks than the outer tracks, so
random OPs perform better there.
um, most all hard disks are CAV, so the rotational latency measured in
milliseconds is constant
11 matches
Mail list logo
