From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3515913800E for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 15:41:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 92D01E080C; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 15:40:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yx0-f181.google.com (mail-yx0-f181.google.com [209.85.213.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 680E6E07A1 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 15:39:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by yenq13 with SMTP id q13so1019303yen.40 for ; Wed, 08 Aug 2012 08:39:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=fhFTq5z7+lpaQ6I/bX+PpbL2uDWpD8Q7LBgdF+E7HK4=; b=WRNsREJE0WpwId9ARepXU/SaBYQ85e1WJ9OdHQfeiUQZVjQUun5q+4dfYiQJ7ufR/P nyqGfepg+Zoe3sHy19skt2NIe5wZVtZ1ZrkDTBATL3Gh5jyXqhb/l0qW3mGtiikNNHCd 90c9h1hIAvOFvyNLaLEnmm/up/lO1uQI3kyQpCAAPDpUv4ktOVFU0OdypgxRvGwydk8U ypmogfeIgu+QZrwMFg10SZ2GJkBGUpLIgwLLbKVrNn6uRW4hMrv498iCi/ZnKVbvweo6 tdNz7ZB7hewUXjyR2i4sUoG5CSymQseMtENw/OFhN93e8G+MGieWrZTFNrMFSRG0unWV WyhA== Received: by 10.236.79.100 with SMTP id h64mr17501368yhe.50.1344440359805; Wed, 08 Aug 2012 08:39:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.5] (adsl-65-0-123-153.jan.bellsouth.net. [65.0.123.153]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e5sm15093349yhi.12.2012.08.08.08.39.18 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 08 Aug 2012 08:39:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5022881F.903@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:39:11 -0500 From: Dale User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120717 Firefox/14.0.1 SeaMonkey/2.11 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Want to seriously test a NEW hard drive References: <501E6AFA.4000205@gmail.com> <50219626.5010806@gmail.com> <5021CC94.3050701@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 996898c0-9d0f-4e9c-8ca1-8963a8f0a419 X-Archives-Hash: d34b11e928659da845e09ad61f47f14b Paul Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Dale wrote: >> 4 or 5 hours huh. I guess drives are a lot faster now. Back in the >> late 80's or early 90's, it took that long for those whimpy little 100Mb >> drives. Ooops, my ages is showing again. lol > I recently found a box of hard drives in my house and have been using > ddrescue to pull the data off of them. These drives were not that old, > around 1gb each. Desktop drives. I was amazed at how slow they were > relative to today's drives... 2MB/sec? 5MB/sec? My internet connection > is faster than that now. > > Also, found a dead 5.25" Quantum hard drive... forgot how huge those > are. Weighed a ton and it was built like a tank. > > Your new drive will probably go around 100-150MB/sec or so on > sequential writes. So you can do the math and figure out how many > hours that will take. > > It won't be that fast. The drive supports 6Gbs/sec but my mobo is only 3Gbs/sec. I hope to upgrade my mobo at some point. Then maybe the ram and CPU. I been looking at those 8 core CPUs a bit. The prices are coming down slowly. Anyway, I'll only get the 3Gbs/sec for now. I used to have a couple of those really old 14 inch hard drives. I think I sold them for scrap a few years ago. They were mostly aluminium if I recall correctly. They were only a few megabytes but they sure was big. Our age is showing. lol I bet folks know I am not a teenager now. ;-) Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!