Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!rutgers!cbmvax!jesup
From: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Subject: Re: Hard disk transfer rates
Message-ID: <14737@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: 29 Sep 90 23:13:58 GMT
References: <1938@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> <2253@impch.imp.com> <2434@bambam.UUCP> <24541@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> <1245@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de> <24562@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>
Reply-To: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA
Lines: 23

In article <24562@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> jma@beach.cis.ufl.edu (John 'Vlad' Adams) writes:
>In article <1245@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de> p554mve@mpirbn.UUCP (Michael van Elst) writes:
>>
>>That's because of the read-ahead cache of the drive. As the name
>>says it won't work with writes.
>
>Sure, the Quantum has a 64k cache, but I certainly hope that a Quantum
>is capable of better than 450k writes when all I've heard is how
>a Quantum is one of the best low-end drives.  I also would hope that
>a DMA controller like the 2091 is faster than a non-DMA GVP card
>using a bloody slow Segate drive.  I'm not satisfied with the
>64k cache being the only saving grace of the drive.  

	The 40's have 16K caches, I think.  The 80's and all the new
generation models (50's, etc) have 64K+ I think.  The Q40S software seems
to have been a bit slow at writes compared to the others.  Q50S's and
Q210S's, and Q105S's seem to get 700-900K/s writes, and slightly faster
reads.

-- 
Randell Jesup, Keeper of AmigaDos, Commodore Engineering.
{uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com  BIX: rjesup  
Common phrase heard at Amiga Devcon '89: "It's in there!"