🚀 go-pugleaf

ajb8886@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:

>Also note that the "CMOS" drive configuration (what the computer THINKS the
>drive is configured as) and what the drive is ACTUALLY configured as (due to
>"translation"), the test may be actually spanning multiple cylinders depending
>on the data on the drive is organized.  In such a case you would have more
>overhead due to the head repositioning (which the diagnostics program "thinks"
>is not occurring due to sector translation).

I used the parameters on the label of this drive. It has 989 cyl., 12 head,
and 35 sector/trk. Now come to think of it. It is unlikely to have 6
platers (12 heads) in this 1" height drive. The *actual* geometry of this
drive probably has 2 or 3 plater, more cylinders, and more sectors on outer
tracks and less on inner. I guess total # of sectors is the same for both
the parameter on the label and the *actual* parameter. Am I right?

 >Moral of the story:  Do not rely on disk benchmarks too heavily, as the way
 >they are measured can sometimes give widely varying results (particularly with
 >the use of on-drive hardware caches).

I got ya.

 >Yes.  Try a recent version of CORE test.  It's pretty consistent ALTHOUGH it
 >sometimes gets confused by caching and reports very high performance (but
 >misleading) figures with some caches enabled.

I just tried CORE test (v 2.92) I found on wuarchive. It showed 1.89 meg/s. 
Amazingly different... Maybe this version is too old. It is dated 1990.

Anyway, thanks for the detailed reply!