🚀 go-pugleaf

>> First you say that empty/full has nothing to do with transfer rate,
>> and then you admit that it makes drives slower as they fill up (since
>> they move toward the inner tracks), proving yourself wrong before you
>> even finish the sentence.

>You don't read English very well.  Empty/full has nothing to do with the
>transfer rate.  Where on a drive information is recorded does effect the
>transfer rate of that information.  A full drive reads the information
>recorded at the OD just as fast as an empty drive.  Now do you understand
>it.

I understand that you are obviously trying to attack my intelligence
by questioning my language skills since you can't deal directly with
my points and would rather divert them.  I also understand that you
seem to think that hard drives never WRITE anything, and that even if
you fill a hard drive to capacity you will always be reading from the
first track.  Every time you post, it seems to completely escape your
comprehension that real-world hard drives do not spend all of their
time on the first track.

Let me remind you: real-world hard drives are at least half-full.
When you write to a real-world hard drive, you will therefore not be
writing at track-one speed.  Also, unless you like to repeatedly read
boot files, you will probably not READ at track-one speed because most
of your application software and data will not reside there.

And finally, real-world hard drives spend a LOT of time seeking
around- don't you ever wonder why hard drives make all of those seek
noises instead of seeking once and then silently sucking up a big
contiguous block (which is what you seem to think they do?)  Try
LISTENING to a real hard drive under real-world use sometime.

Did it ever occur to you that there are more applications in the world
than Office 97?  You repeatedly mention audio/video streaming
applications (where sustainable write speed is critical) and then you
act as though nobody ever WRITES anything ... unbelievable.

>That statement needs no defense as all the competent high performance
>workstations users that I know of periodically defrag.  All their DLLs and
>EXEs and swap file..... are defraged and only late installs or other recent
>files have the possibility of being significantly fragmented.

I defrag all the time as well- but when my software is busy making
temp files and work files, those files are fragged.  How do I know
that they are fragged?  Because after a big job is done crunching,
there are tons of fragmented files laying all over the hard disk that
weren't there before!!!  This isn't rocket science, Ron, although it
seems to escape you anyway.

>I guess that
>you don't realize that much of a workstations I/O involves reading
>relatively fixed files base.  You need to get more extensive real world
>experience before you spout in these NGs.

REAL-WORLD EXPERIENCE?  YOU of all people are criticizing on the basis
of real-world experience?  I'm a sysadmin and I am SPEAKING from
real-world experience.  If you want, I can even tell you what type of
software we run on those workstations and give you all of the hardware
specs so that you can check it out for yourself.  What real-world
experience are YOU speaking from, Ron?  I can't believe that you,
after repeatedly admitting that you've never tried ANY of this in the
real world, are lecturing others about real-world experience.