Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!syntron!jtsv16!uunet!tank!ncar!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!cca.ucsf.edu!rampil
From: rampil@cca.ucsf.edu (Ira Rampil)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: DiskTimer II results for verious disks wanted.
Message-ID: <1449@ucsfcca.ucsf.edu>
Date: 30 Oct 88 20:04:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: ucsfcca.1449
References: <910@taux01.UUCP> <16@eplrx7.UUCP>
Reply-To: rampil@cca.ucsf.edu.UUCP (Ira Rampil)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Computer Center, UCSF
Lines: 18

In article <16@eplrx7.UUCP> lad@eplrx7.UUCP (lad) writes:
>
>If you're looking to compare the performance of SCSI disks Disktimer is NOT the way to
>do it.  Disktimer is not a benchmark,  it favors disks with a 1:1 interleave and it's
>results do not reflect real-world disk performance.  Supermac based their whole
>marketing scheme around Disktimer,  saying their disks were faster because Disktimer
>said so.
>
>-- 
>        Lawrence A. Deleski             |       E.I. Dupont Co.

Could it be that DiskTimer favors 1:1 interleave disks because
they ARE faster?  Is this in dispute?

Ira Rampil
Department of Anesthesia
UCSF
#include null_disclaimer.h