Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 22:31:22 -0400 From: Shannon Hendrix <shannon@widomaker.com> To: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> Cc: Jason Andresen <jandrese@mitre.org>, "Albert D. Cahalan" <acahalan@cs.uml.edu>, ccf@master.ndi.net, gordont@bluemtn.net, jkh@osd.bsdi.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: technical comparison Message-ID: <20010522223120.C5012@widomaker.com> In-Reply-To: <3B0B187D.47C98452@newsguy.com>; from dcs@newsguy.com on Tue, May 22, 2001 at 10:55:09PM -0300 References: <200105221816.f4MIGK1171051@saturn.cs.uml.edu> <3B0AB4B1.78A0FB0A@mitre.org> <20010522212029.D2734@widomaker.com> <3B0B187D.47C98452@newsguy.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 10:55:09PM -0300, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: > And just to get things worse... :-) the test must be made on the *same* > slice. If you configure two different slices, the one on the outer > tracks will be faster. I cannot verify that with my drive, but my largest is 18GB so maybe the difference is not as pronounced as on some newer drives like those (currently) monster 70GB drives. A 70GB IBM Ultrastar supposedly can physically outrun the internal electronics on the faster tracks. One review I read mentioned it as a problem, though I'm not sure why. In any case, I'm not quite that picky, and I would not think that postmark would benefit as much from being on the faster tracks. It's doing a lot more complicated things than just streaming data. -- "And in billows of might swell the Saxons before her,-- Unite, oh unite! Or the billows burst o'er her!" -- Downfall of the Gael ______________________________________________________________________ Charles Shannon Hendrix s h a n n o n @ w i d o m a k e r . c o m To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010522223120.C5012>