🚀 go-pugleaf

Paul Rae <paul_rae@bbs.macnexus.org> wrote in article
<paul_rae-0812970033390001@ppp118.macnexus.org>...
> I've been following this thread for some time. There's been some
> interesting claims. I have the supermicro P6dls board with UW SCSI and of
> course UDMA IDE support. I need both for my use.
> Anyhow, I just thought I'd put my 2cents worth in by suggesting people
> might want to take a look at this site. There's some interesting
> benchmarks.
> 
> http://www.cstone.net/~mbreeden/mac/

What exactly is relevant at the above URL.


> 
> In article <pLMYl5dhX7hK-pn2-dwio8ZtCixdO@ALEX>, krw@ibm.net wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 8 Dec 1997 19:00:53, bob@lintilla.demon.co.uk (Bob 
> > Cousins) wrote:
> > 
> > > In demon.tech.pc, Ron Reaugh wrote:
> > > 
> > > >Workstation performance is dominated by sustained transfer rate and
not
> > > >access time.
> > > 
> > > I think that's completely untrue. Only in very few situations do you
get
> > > conditions where sustained transfer rate would be dominant. i..e
where
> you are
> > > doing sequential accesses with large transfer sizes. Typical
> workstation access
> > > is random access with relatively small transfers. It only takes a few
> seeks to
> > > some other part of the disk to screw sustained rate.
> > 
> > I tend to agree.  Intel asserts that this randomness is far worse
> > than the disk makers claim and therefor very much over rate their
> > drives.  In fact they state that the specs on drives are next to 
> > meaningless (or worse).  
> > 
> > ----
> > 
> >   Keith R. Williams
> >   krw@ibm.net
>