🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5apvkt$k40@samba.rahul.net>,  <dhesi@41194252.trackme.com> wrote:
>
>I am comparing the 9-gig drives with the 4-gig drives of the same
>generation.  I tried a 9-gig drives in various places and the result was
>always a slow machine.  I talked to a few other people and they said
>they had experienced similar poor performance.

Again, without a basis for comparsion, I think we're venturing into one of
those endless apples vs oranges discussions.  In all tests that I've seen,
both artificial (benchmarking programs such as MacBench and HDT BenchTest)
and real world (PhotoShop, Premiere video-capture, etc.), the current
generation of Cuda9's are much faster (numbers cited previouslyly) than
the older generation of Cuda4's and slightly faster (on the order of 5%)
than the current generation of Cuda4LP's.

Unless you're referring to the Elite 9 (older 5.25" 5400RPM 9GB drive)
versus the Cuda4 (older 3.5" FH 7200RPM 4GM drive), that is.  Then we're
really comparing apples and oranges.

>
>Calculating crudely:
>
>If a 9-gig drive is 40% slower than a 4-gig drive based on its seek and
>latency specs, and if it is also 40% slower than two 4-gig drives
>because they have two spindles, then the 9-gig drive will be 0.6 * 0.6 =
>0.36 times as fact as two 4-gig drives.

Errr...  Where did these numbers pop up from?  I don't know of a single
4GB drive that is faster than it's 9GB bigger cousin.  Also, two 4GB
drives are more expensive than a single 9GB drive.

And in any event, we've ventured far from the original point, which is
that storage is getting amazingly cheap and that Best shouldn't be
skimping.
-- 
Henry Kwan               | StreamLogic Corp.     | Voice: 415-325-4392
Engineering              | 1555 Adams Drive      | FaxBack: 415-833-4683
logic@best.com           | Menlo Park, CA  94025 | Web: www.sledgehammer.com
Web: www.best.com/~logic | "Home of the Hammer"  | <Send Email for PGP Key>