Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!eplrx7!lad
From: lad@eplrx7.UUCP (lad)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: DiskTimer II results for verious disks wanted.
Message-ID: <31@eplrx7.UUCP>
Date: 4 Nov 88 13:19:18 GMT
References: <30248@think.UUCP>
Distribution: comp
Lines: 62

From article <30248@think.UUCP>, by ephraim@think.COM (Ephraim Vishniac):
> 
> Time to stop the garbage, Larry.  DiskTimer *does not* bypass the
> driver.  DiskTimer calls the disk's driver through the Device Manager.
> That's what the Mac file system does, and that's why DiskTimer's
> results have some bearing on the performance that a disk makes
> available to the file system.  DiskTimer *agrees* with what Apple
> *actually* claimed, which is that a Seagate ST225N on a MacPlus with
> Apple's driver is optimally interleaved at 3:1.  If your disk or
> driver or Mac is different, then Apple's advice is perfectly
> irrelevant.

Nice try.  The previous statements completely contradict all that's ever been said
about Disktimer.  Disktimer NEVER used the Device Manager, and it NEVER used the File
Manager,  something ALL drivers have to do to talk to the disk.  
 

> I'm amazed that you continue to spout this nonsense. 

Why the personal attacks?  Nonsense is exactly what this is.

>Just within the
> past month, there were a series of articles here (comp.sys.mac)
> discussing how someone mistakenly formatted his disk at 1:1 instead of
> 2:1 and got dismal performance -- plainly shown by DiskTimer!

I read those articles but they have nothing to do with what we're talking about here.
I'm talking about real tests done by real people on real disks,  which,  by the way,
were formatted at 1:1, 2:1, and 3:1.  Disktimer consistantly favored disks formatted
1:1 no matter which machine they're run on.

What's nonsense is how you continue to praise Disktimer as a real performance
benchmark.  

> 
> Try some tests yourself, Larry.  You'll find your foot's been in your
> mouth for a long time.

Not so, Ehpraim.  I don't know what your problem is,  but Disktimer is bogus and many
people have known about it for a long time.  I *have* run tests,  and came to the same
conclusions that Jim Reeks and many others came to,  Disktimer has little or no
bearing on disk performance.

By the way,  you forget too easily that Reeks did extensive testing and even published
an article on Disktimer.  I'm going to track it down and post it to the net.  I
remember you flaming Reeks about that article,  using the same arguments you're using
now.  Those arguments were wrong then,  and they're wrong now.

Steve Brecher has even said many times before that Disktimer,   the program *he*
wrote, dosen't reflect real-world disk performance.  It's even in the program's
initial screen!!

You stop the garbage, Ephraim.  It's seems you have some vested interest in seeing
that Disktimer somehow succeeds.  I wish you luck.



-- 
        Lawrence A. Deleski             |       E.I. Dupont Co.
        uunet!eplrx7!lad                |       Engineering Physics Lab
        Cash-We-Serve 76127,104         |       Wilmington, Delaware 19898
        MABELL:  (302) 695-9353         |       Mail Stop: E357-302