Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!seismo!harvard!h-sc1!breuel
From: breuel@h-sc1.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: Diskbench Misleading? (Re: Delphi Mac Digest V2 #11)
Message-ID: <1017@h-sc1.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 29-Mar-86 23:38:46 EST
Article-I.D.: h-sc1.1017
Posted: Sat Mar 29 23:38:46 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 1-Apr-86 07:20:45 EST
References: <4608@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> <780@wang.UUCP>
Reply-To: breuel@h-sc1.UUCP (thomas breuel)
Organization: Harvard Univ. Science Center
Lines: 12


|[to optimize single block transfers, I should have chosen an
|interleave factor of 17, for the benchmarks, I should have chosen
|an interleave factor of 4!]

I don't think it makes sense to choose interleave factors on the
basis of anything but large reads/writes. The reason is that for
small transfers the interleave factor will depend to a very large
degree on the setup time for each transfer, which is completely
unpredictable from application to application. 

						Thomas.