On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 11:32:16PM -0500, John Richard Moser wrote:
> Does crossing a
> track boundary incur anything expensive?
AFAIK, yes. It's going to involve some kind of seeking (even a head
switch needs microjogging on modern drives), and it will certainly add
latency (although I don't reme
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> How likely is it that I can actually align stuff to 31.5KiB on the
> physical disk, i.e. have each block be a track?
It is not that easy to allign on tracks, even on raw partition. Some disks
have different length of tracks (of course because the inner c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Well then, the verdict is reached.
My original design is based around storing related data in the same
block so that the track cache allows me to evade doing reads while I
poke around.
The design will stay the same; but the dependency on the track ca
John Richard Moser wrote:
How likely is it that I can actually align stuff to 31.5KiB on the
physical disk, i.e. have each block be a track?
I don't think this is very likely. Even being able to find out what the
physical disk arrangement is, or whether it is consistent in terms of
track size, et
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
How likely is it that I can actually align stuff to 31.5KiB on the
physical disk, i.e. have each block be a track?
Rather than leveraging the track cache, would it be less expensive for
me to simply read in blocks totaling about 16 or 32KiB all at onc
5 matches
Mail list logo
