Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!amdahl!pacbell!att!whuts!homxb!antique!cjp
From: cjp@antique.UUCP (Charles Poirier)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Hard disk speed question.
Summary: Recalculate that speed
Message-ID: <2322@antique.UUCP>
Date: 1 Jul 88 03:46:55 GMT
References: <6957@cup.portal.com> <4156@cbmvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: vax135!cjp (Charles Poirier)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 19

In article <4156@cbmvax.UUCP> steveb@cbmvax.UUCP (Steve Beats) writes:
>In article <6957@cup.portal.com> Michael_J_Dedina@cup.portal.com writes:
>>Would a 30ms hard drive give you significantly better performance than a 60 or
>
>if you are getting 500-600K burst transfer rates from your drive, that evens
>out to about 1ms per 512 byte block.  Therefore, stepping to the next track
>on an 80ms seek time drive just cost you 40K/s of throughput, regardless of
>interleaving.  A point to ponder, no ?

Well, to compute this is a bit tricky.  First, you want track-to-track time
rather than average access time.  You need to know how many tracks it
does per second.  Etc....  Back-of-the-envelope-wise, though, I'd say
the slow drive would lose a great deal more than 40K/second versus say
a Quantum Q280.

-- 
	Charles Poirier   (decvax,ucbvax,mcnc,attmail)!vax135!cjp

   "Docking complete...       Docking complete...       Docking complete..."