partition and speed

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

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.

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.
18 answers Last reply
More about partition speed
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    this is a joke right?

    further away from the spindle? and you think your going to tell the
    difference....like the faster speed you get when you only use a 3rd of
    a cd rom disk cause it burns from the center out?

    "Rob Hines" <nospam@nodomain.com> wrote in message
    news:4125d95a$0$21754$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
    >
    > 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.
    >
    > 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.
    >
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    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.
    >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 :P


    --
    Free Windows/PC help,
    http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html
    remove obvious to reply
    email shep@obviouspartyheld.de
    Free songs to download and,"BURN" :O)
    http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    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 :P

    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.
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:09:00 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
    wrote:

    > 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.

    I agree, but differences should not be much IMHO
    >
    > 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.

    thats quite a lot, but benching not real life situation (teorethical
    max speed); using cumulative results with "indexed or scored" results
    should give less than 10% real life performance (PCMark2002 for
    example.

    the average speed also has to do something IMHO with HD firmware; for
    example my QuantumF+AS 20Gb gives best results in the middle of the
    its capacity; I was also surprised to see that results since before I
    thought should be C part fastest (with 2HDs I had before, it was so).
    Some benching can reveal interesting behavior sometimes ...

    --
    Regards, SPAJKY ®
    & visit my site @ http://www.spajky.vze.com
    "Tualatin OC-ed / BX-Slot1 / inaudible setup!"
    E-mail AntiSpam: remove ##
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Spajky wrote:

    > On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:09:00 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >> 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.
    >
    >
    > I agree, but differences should not be much IMHO
    >
    >>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.
    >
    >
    > thats quite a lot, but benching not real life situation (teorethical
    > max speed); using cumulative results with "indexed or scored" results
    > should give less than 10% real life performance (PCMark2002 for
    > example.

    It also makes a difference what assumptions the benchmark program is using.
    He's not talking about where one 'one large partition', with everything
    jumbled together, is it 'faster'. He's talking about partitioning the drive
    and using them for specific purposes.

    > the average speed also has to do something IMHO with HD firmware; for
    > example my QuantumF+AS 20Gb gives best results in the middle of the
    > its capacity;

    How did you restrict a general purpose benchmark program to 'the middle'?

    > I was also surprised to see that results since before I
    > thought should be C part fastest (with 2HDs I had before, it was so).
    > Some benching can reveal interesting behavior sometimes ...
    >

    When I said "66%" faster I was talking about the linear data rate only.
    Latency and seek times are the same so it depends, as usual, on what one is
    doing with it. Jumping around a gaggle of small files isn't going to show
    much, if any, difference because latency and seek time effects will swamp
    the track data rate differences.

    When used for a contiguous swap file, however, the data rate comes into play.
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    ROFLMAO............66% faster than WHAT,,,and that breaks down to
    What? 5 milliseconds and you can tell with your own god given
    talents that its faster..........silly question and a silly
    answer.....

    "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 :P

    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.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    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 :P
    >
    >
    > 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.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    here in the real world makes little difference


    "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 :P
    >
    >
    > 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.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    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 :P
    >>
    >>
    >>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.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    >
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    look, at the outside we are looking at milliseconds of
    difference,,,,,what would you be using, that would utilize the
    microseconds that your talking about?(SETI?) 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.

    "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 :P
    >>
    >>
    >>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.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    >
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    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 :P
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>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.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    hehehehe you keep using this 66% faster, THAN WHAT? 66% FASTER
    faster =time time in regards to HD's is milliseconds. Its not hard
    to figure it out.


    "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 :P
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>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.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 05:56:36 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
    wrote:

    >> the average speed also has to do something IMHO with HD firmware; for
    >> example my QuantumF+AS 20Gb gives best results in the middle of the
    >> its capacity;
    >
    >How did you restrict a general purpose benchmark program to 'the middle'?

    with "demo" version it benches only C part
    with "registered" (pro) version, you can chose in options which
    partition to bench .. :-) & to display as HD score ... :-)
    --
    Regards, SPAJKY ®
    & visit my site @ http://www.spajky.vze.com
    "Tualatin OC-ed / BX-Slot1 / inaudible setup!"
    E-mail AntiSpam: remove ##
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Spajky wrote:

    > On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 05:56:36 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>the average speed also has to do something IMHO with HD firmware; for
    >>>example my QuantumF+AS 20Gb gives best results in the middle of the
    >>>its capacity;
    >>
    >>How did you restrict a general purpose benchmark program to 'the middle'?
    >
    >
    > with "demo" version it benches only C part
    > with "registered" (pro) version, you can chose in options which
    > partition to bench .. :-) & to display as HD score ... :-)

    I asked because you didn't say anything about setting up partitions
    segmented across your drive to test specific areas of it.
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    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 :P
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>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.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  16. 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 :P
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>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.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    JAD wrote:

    > all results in nothing noticeable except to BM watchers

    No, you mean *you* don't notice it, although one wonders how you COULD as I
    doubt you've ever bothered optimizing disk partitions. But I wouldn't be
    too surprised as you also don't notice 7200 vs 5400 RPM either.

    >......drop your line somewhere else, this spot has gone silent.

    This is the first I heard of facts and basic math being called a 'line'.


    > "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.
    >
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 03:27:33 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
    wrote:

    >>>How did you restrict a general purpose benchmark program to 'the middle'?
    >>
    >>
    >> with "demo" version it benches only C part
    >> with "registered" (pro) version, you can chose in options which
    >> partition to bench .. :-) & to display as HD score ... :-)
    >
    >I asked because you didn't say anything about setting up partitions
    >segmented across your drive to test specific areas of it.

    I have it partitioned in few partitions & the middle ones are the
    fastest benched. I also run HDTach /read only, not registered/ & also
    there was the highest "hill" in the bench around middle of its
    capacity .... interesting this with my drive ... must be something in
    firmware set so to minimize differences of performance depending on
    data position on the platters ... I don´t know ...
    --
    Regards, SPAJKY ®
    & visit my site @ http://www.spajky.vze.com
    "Tualatin OC-ed / BX-Slot1 / inaudible setup!"
    E-mail AntiSpam: remove ##
Ask a new question

Read More

Homebuilt Performance Partition Systems