Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!van-bc!
From: lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Subject: Re: Controller Speed tests
Message-ID: <2319@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca>
Date: 3 Dec 90 18:57:27 GMT
Lines: 24
Return-Path: <lpami!lphillips>
To: van-bc!rnews

In <6033@crash.cts.com>, hawk@pnet01.cts.com (John Anderson) writes:
>  When Hard drive speed-test programs are run, they usually show four speeds.
>With 512 buffers, 1024, etc. My question is why do the need to show with
>different amount of buffers and why do people always pick the one with the
>most when comparing speeds?  If the different speeds were for different sized
>files etc, then people should average them together to give an average speed
>not the fastest in rarest cases?  Is this correct?  I don't understand?

Though none of the figures given can be relied upon to give a really good
comparison between drives (due to different amounts of fragmentation on any
given drives), the reads using the largest buffer are the most indicative of
drive/controller performance.  The reason for this is that the smaller the
buffer size, the more of it is Amigados overhead, and perhaps other overhead as
well.

-larry

--
The only things to survive a nuclear war will be cockroaches and IBM PCs.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ 
|   //   Larry Phillips                                                 |
| \X/    lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips |
|        COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322  -or-  76703.4322@compuserve.com        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+