🚀 go-pugleaf

>Nice try attempting to change the subject.  You seem to spend a lot of time
>trying to say what I've said or think and most of what you attribute to me
>is totally false.  

I notice how you make no attempt whatsoever to address my specific
points here, preferring to simply dismiss my entire post as a single
block with your pithy statement above.  Interesting tactic.

>Depending on the drive model,  the track one speed holds from between
>15%-33% of the drive's capacity.  All it takes for a workstation's hard
>drive performance to be transfer rate dominated is that the average
>read/write be somewhere around 150K.  What do you think the read/write
>ratio is on an average workstation usage excluding the swap file?  

#1) Where do you get your evidence that the track-one speed is
rock-solid for the first 15% to 33% of the drive's capacity?  Does it
suddenly drop down for the next 33%, and then suddenly drop down again
for the last 33%?

#2) All it takes is that the average read/write is arond 150K?  Prove
this.  Suppose I read twelve 150K blocks simultaneously.  Will that be
transfer rate dominated?  And what's this nonsense about excluding the
swap file?  Do I get to exclude the swap file when I run a huge
compile?  Do I get to exclude the swap file when I'm crunching
toolpaths?  Tell me, when somebody wants to run two simultaneous
simulation operations on his dual-CPU workstation, where do you find
the "no simultaneous I/O operation" button, and the "don't touch
swapfile" button?  I would love to know, since you seem to have found
both of those buttons for YOUR theoretical workstations.  Oh wait- I
forgot, none of your theories are based on real-world experience.