Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!think!ephraim From: ephraim@think.COM (Ephraim Vishniac) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Reekes on Disktimer (actually, MacWorld on DiskTimer) Message-ID: <31230@think.UUCP> Date: 13 Nov 88 03:04:14 GMT References: <698@mouse.UUCP> <7595@well.UUCP> <20306@apple.Apple.COM> <7625@well.UUCP> Sender: news@think.UUCP Reply-To: ephraim@think.com (Ephraim Vishniac) Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA Lines: 32 In article <7625@well.UUCP> brecher@well.UUCP (Steve Brecher) writes: >> MacWeek has found that the timings of DiskTimer II have no >> correlation with real world performance. > >*No* correlation? I missed the article referred to... So did I, but: The current issue of MacWorld (December 1988) has a review of umpteen 20-megabyte drives. They measured performance in three ways: DiskTimer II, their own "reality check" (a single 512Kbyte read), and a series of end-user operations (copying files, launching applications, opening documents). From DiskTimer and the reality check, they calculated data transfer rates. I was very surprised at the level of agreement. DiskTimer was always marginally more optimistic, but the differences were slight. (BTW, for a good laugh note that the graphs on page 134 are labelled in "kilobits/second," with the fastest drive rated at about 2.5Kb/S. Time for a sanity check on those captions...) The important lesson comes in comparing the transfer rate graphs to the "Real-World Performance" graph. In data transfer rates, the drives vary by a factor of 4:1. But by "real-world performance," the range is less than 2:1 and the rankings are different. I've said it before, but I'll say it again: data transfer rate is over-rated. Ephraim Vishniac ephraim@think.com Thinking Machines Corporation / 245 First Street / Cambridge, MA 02142-1214 On two occasions I have been asked, "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?"