Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!hpda!motcsd!xdos!doug
From: doug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: DiskPerf results
Message-ID: <266@xdos.UUCP>
Date: 6 May 89 18:11:44 GMT
References: <6720@cbmvax.UUCP> <7985@killer.Dallas.TX.US>
Reply-To: doug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt)
Organization: Hunter Systems, Mountain View CA (Silicon Valley)
Lines: 23

In article <7985@killer.Dallas.TX.US> elg@killer.Dallas.TX.US (Eric Green) writes:
>I think 3.58MB/s is plenty fast ;-). (note what I said about all
>speeds > 500K/sec... massive overkill!). 

I don't see this. Why do you say > 500K/sec is overkill??? My experience
over the years with disks on Unix says that faster is better. Granted
the access time is usually the dominating factor, but not always. What
about the case (either UNIX *or* AmigaDos) when you've carefully arranged
to have large files arranged more-or-less contiguously? Then the transfer
rate makes a difference. What if you want to dump animation/sound off
disk, and you have a huge amount of data. A factor of two in disk transfer
could translate directly into a factor of two in the frame rate.

The difference in non-animation may be less dramatic but still noticeable.
If I load a 1 megabyte executable, or image (etc) then the difference
between .5 sec and 1 second will often be noticeable. It won't always
be swamped by the access time.
	Doug
-- 
Doug Merritt			Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow
{pyramid,apple}!xdos!doug	Professional Wildeyed Visionary

"Of course, I'm no rocket scientist" -- Randell Jesup, Capt. Boinger Corps