Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (
More info?)
all results in nothing noticeable except to BM watchers......drop your
line somewhere else, this spot has gone silent.
"David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10il7u273giffda@corp.supernews.com...
JAD wrote:
> hehehehe you keep using this 66% faster, THAN WHAT?
And the 'what' was explained: 284 Mb/s vs 171 Mb/s, for the example
IBM
Deskstar 34GXP.
You ARE capable of calculating a percentage increase from 171 to 284,
aren't you?
> 66% FASTER
> faster =time
Well, no. 'Faster' can be expressed as either a decrease in time to
accomplish something or an increase of things accomplished in a fixed
time.
such as transferring 284 Mb/s vs 171Mb/s, but in neither case is it
simply
'time'.
Number of things accomplished per fixed unit of time is the more
common:
MPH, RPM, bps, and, the ever popular, furlongs per fortnight.
> time in regards to HD's is milliseconds.
Time is time. 'Milli' is simply a decimal system prefix to seconds;
e.g.
..001 seconds. Seconds, itself, is simply an arbitrary measure derived
from
it's convenience in dividing up the time it takes the earth to rotate
from
high noon to high noon.
To expound, 12 occurs in so many measurements from ancient times
because it
is conveniently, for people unfamiliar with fractions, divisible by 2,
3,
and 4. 60 is the next convenient number, being divisible by 2, 3, 4,
and 5.
Hence, two 12 hour periods in a day, 60 minutes per hour, and 60
seconds
per minute.
> Its not hard
> to figure it out.
Right: ((284/171)-1)*100=66.081871345029239766081871345029%
Which is why your difficulty in figuring it out is a mystery.
> "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
> news:10ijbi7l25it5e@corp.supernews.com...
> JAD wrote:
>
>
>>look, at the outside we are looking at milliseconds of
>>difference,,,,
>
>
> What you're looking at, on the example drive, it a data rate 66%
> faster
> than on the inner most tracks.
>
> I have no idea how you arrive at 'milliseconds'.
>
>
>>,what would you be using, that would utilize the
>>microseconds that your talking about?(SETI?)
>
>
> Be rather silly to use a CPU bound task for gauging disk
performance.
>
>
>> Except the 'benchmark
>>log' boasting rights? Its cool to know there is a difference, but
>
> the
>
>>info makes little difference from the average users/consumers POV.
>
>
> There are a lot of things the 'average user' doesn't know about; one
> of
> which probably is how to even partition the drive in the first
place.
>
> Although, if they've got a contiguous page file and are using Speed
> Disk
> they don't need to as it automatically moves the page file to the
> front for
> that very reason.
>
>
>
>
>>"David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
>>news:10iid13duamcr32@corp.supernews.com...
>>JAD wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>here in the real world makes little difference
>>
>>
>>It won't, to those who don't now how to utilize it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>"David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
>>>news:10iialbbjn867ad@corp.supernews.com...
>>>JAD wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>ROFLMAO............66% faster than WHAT
>>>
>>>
>>>What part of outer track vs inner track did you not understand?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>,,,and that breaks down to
>>>>What?
>>>
>>>
>>>284 Mb/s vs 171 Mb/s, for the example IBM Deskstar 34GXP.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 5 milliseconds and you can tell with your own god given
>>>>talents that its faster.......... silly question and a silly
>>>>answer.....
>>>
>>>
>>>Did you forget to take your medication today?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:10ig72ad9n9du3e@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>Shep© wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 06:58:30 -0400 To confuse Arrogance with
>>>>>Confidence is as stupid as to confuse Ambition with Ability and
>>
>>then
>>
>>
>>>>>Rob Hines <nospam@nodomain.com> wrote :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I just built a new system and partitioned the disk into 4
>>>>
>>>>partitions. I
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>wanted to multiboot the system and have a choice on where to put
>>>>
>>>>each
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>partition - W2000, XP and Linux. Before I start installing the
>>>>
>>>>OSes, I
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>want to determine which partition will give the best performance
>>>
>>>for
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>each.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Won't matter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It surely will.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Can anyone tell me a) if data stored in the C: partition is
>>
>>closest
>>
>>
>>>>to
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>the spindle, and b) if there's a difference in performance
>
> between
>
>>>>the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>partition closest to the spindle vs. partition fartherest away
>>
>>from
>>
>>
>>>>it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Nope.You will slow down the system no matter where you put the
O/S
>>>>
>>>>coz
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>you is asking silly questions
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It isn't a silly question. Modern hard drives use zoned bit
>>>
>>>recording,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>meaning the number of sectors per track varies depending on where
>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>track
>>>>is located, inner to outer, for the obvious reason that an outer
>>>
>>>track
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>has
>>>>a larger circumference than the inner tracks and can, therefor,
>
> hold
>
>>>>more
>>>>sectors (at the same linear bit density).
>>>>
>>>>For example, the IBM Deskstar 34GXP (model DPTA-373420) has a
media
>>>>transfer rate of between approximately 171 Mb/s and 284 Mb/s
>>>
>>>depending
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>where on the disk you are reading: that drive has 12 different
>
> zones
>
>>>>with
>>>>272 sectors in its innermost zone and 452 sectors on its outside
>>>>tracks.
>>>>
>>>>Which means it's 66% faster on the outer tracks than on the inner;
>>>
>>>not
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>a
>>>>trivial or 'silly' difference.
>
>
>
>
>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram