From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1P1LlN-0006UG-0M for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:13:41 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 909C7E088C; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:13:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 755D3E088C for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:13:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 189111B4062 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:13:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.902 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.303, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EpbVeneeCV8T for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:12:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 688551B4092 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:12:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P1LkR-0001jg-Ql for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 18:12:43 +0200 Received: from athedsl-371921.home.otenet.gr ([79.131.4.207]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 18:12:43 +0200 Received: from realnc by athedsl-371921.home.otenet.gr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 18:12:43 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: Nikos Chantziaras Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Normal disk speed? Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:12:31 +0300 Organization: Lucas Barks Message-ID: References: <201009301510.43043.lists@f_philipp.fastmail.net> <201009301700.17007.peter@humphrey.ukfsn.org> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: athedsl-371921.home.otenet.gr User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100927 Thunderbird/3.1.4 In-Reply-To: <201009301700.17007.peter@humphrey.ukfsn.org> X-Archives-Salt: c34990b6-2980-46fb-80d5-25048b211a47 X-Archives-Hash: cb45e69c270ead627c6aa51fef1278d3 On 09/30/2010 07:00 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote: > On Thursday 30 September 2010 14:10:42 Florian Philipp wrote: > >> An HDD gets slower when you read the inner tracks. The angular >> velocity is constant (5400 RPM) while the tangential velocity gets >> lower with the radius. > > Are you telling us that the length of a stored bit is constant? I'd have > thought it was the time needed to read or write a bit that was constant; > otherwise the electronics would get extremely complex. In that case it's > the angular velocity that counts, not the linear velocity, and it > matters not which track your data are on. (If a block goes past the head > twice as fast, it also occupies twice the space, so you're back where > you were.) Uhm, no. The higher the linear velocity, the higher the read/write speed. This can be proven with any disk benchmark that can bench the whole disk. You get a graph that begins low and ends high (and the difference between inner and outer region is substantial, almost 2:1).