Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!rutgers!ucsd!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!hp-pcd!hpcvca!charles From: charles@hpcvca.HP.COM (Charles Brown) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Request to Commodore (Bad Blocks) Message-ID: <5660016@hpcvca.HP.COM> Date: 15 Sep 88 14:42:35 GMT References: <8891@cup.portal.com> Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Corvallis, Oregon Lines: 36 >> If you always start a track read at the beginning of a track >> (as written) you will on the average have a 1/2 rotation >> latency waiting for the disk to turn to the start of that >> track. So decoupling the index hole from the the start of >> track did not speed up reads AT ALL. > But you don't always start a read at the beginning of a track. > Trackdisk.device starts reading wherever the head is, and reads one > full revolution plus enough extra to make sure it gets at least one > intact copy of the sector it started reading on. So the total track > read time should be constant: > 1 rotation + 1 sector time + 1 index gap time. > > Since the gap varies due to variation in disk speed, etc., you have to > allow some slop. I'd roughly estimate the result as being 1.1 rotations, > not the 1.5 you came up with, so it does save a fair amount of time. > -=] Ford [=- Your argument only applys to reads. I am saying "don't change the way reads are done". So let me work thru the numbers with your correction: > The following numbers represent time in terms of track rotations: > write + read (weighed) > index coupled: 1.5 + 5*1.5 = 9.0 > index decoupled: 1 + 5*1.5 = 8.5 > Now the advantage of decoupled index drops to 8.5/9.0=0.94 or 6% becomes: The following numbers represent time in terms of track rotations: write + read (weighed) index coupled: 1.5 + 5*1.1 = 7.0 index decoupled: 1 + 5*1.1 = 6.5 Now the advantage of decoupled index drops to 6.5/7.0=0.93 or 7% So we gave up track reliability for at best a 7% increase in overall floppy speed. That strikes STILL me as a bad trade. Charles Brown charles%hpcvca@hplabs.hp.com