It's nice to know my SATA II drive is so much superior :)
If the rpm, number of platters, and data encoding stay the same, so
will the performance, broadly speaking, 8MB or 16MB of cache will only
have an effect if you're doing reading that fits a certain pattern,
and as we've seen the physical disk couldn't even half fill an ATA133
interface (let alone SATA, or SATA II) only cache reads can do that.
Why are my cache reads so much slower than yours (by a factor of 2)?
A friend of mine has SATA I, with 1800 MB/s cached reads, which is also
much better.
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list