Article View: comp.sys.mac
Article #34174Re: Reeks on Disktimer (LONG)
From: Matt Dillon
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 1988 21:49
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 1988 21:49
19 lines
1295 bytes
1295 bytes
Well, the way I see it (reading the two articles), DiskTimer is absolutely useless when applied to real-world file handling. However, DiskTimer isn't so bad as to preclude low-level performance comparisons between two drives... sort of the "potential" performance. It has been shown that when a filesystem makes multi-block requests to the lower level driver, performance increases in a non-trivial way. For example, BSD unix 4.1->4.2 did this (plus fixed the disk layout) and got at least a 10x improvment. C-A (Commodore-Amiga) did this and the transfer rate through the filesystem went from 60K/sec to 600K/sec. So, assuming Apple decides to apply similar fixes to their filesystem module, one ought to expect real-world numbers in the same general category as DiskTimer's results. When such a fix eventually appears one can bet the low level performance of your HD will make a big difference. -Matt
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<8811082149.AA27845@postgres.Berkeley.EDU>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!POSTGRES.BERKELEY.EDU!dillonShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!POSTGRES.BERKELEY.EDU!dillon From: dillon@POSTGRES.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Reeks on Disktimer (LONG) Message-ID: <8811082149.AA27845@postgres.Berkeley.EDU> Date: 8 Nov 88 21:49:17 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Lines: 18