🚀 go-pugleaf

::In article <5aq8d3$23o@shellx.best.com>, Henry Kwan <logic@best.com> wrote:
:>In article <5apvkt$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>

    Newer drives are faster for *LINEAR* accesses (3 MBytes/sec four years
    ago, 6 MBytes/sec two years ago, 9-15 MBytes/sec today), but the moment
    you start seeking the performance tends to drop to the same as last 
    year's model.

    I have not seen *significant* improvements in seek times for the last
    3 years.

    The problem with large drives is that you tend to have to seek more on
    them (roughly, twice as much on a 9G drive as on a 4G drive) because
    the larger drive contains a larger active dataset (in a general purpose
    computing environment with a moderate load).

    Thus, for servers, it is usually better to go with smaller drives.  What
    that means in today's terms is to go with 4G drives rather then
    9G drives.

					-Matt