> On Tue, Mar 21, 2000 at 01:14:45PM -0800, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2000 at 09:29:56AM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> > > > :>
> > > > :> I would think that track-caches and intelligent drives would gain
> > > > :> much if not more of what clustering was designed to do gain.
> > > > :
> > > > :Hm. But I'd think that even with modern drives a smaller number of bigger
> > > > :I/Os is preferable over lots of very small I/Os. Or have I missed the point?
> > >
> > > > As long as you do not blow away the drive's cache with your big I/O's,
> > > > and as long as you actually use all the returned data, it's definitely
> > > > more efficient to issue larger I/O's.
> > >
> > > Prefetching data that is never used is obviously a waste. 256K might be a
> > > bit big, I was thinking of something like 64-128Kb
> > >
> > > Drive caches tend to be 0.5-1Mbyte (on SCSI disks) for modern drives.
> >
> > Your a bit behind the times with that set of numbers for modern SCSI
> > drives. It is now 1 to 16 Mbyte of cache, with 2 and 4Mbyte being the
> > most common.
>
> Your drives are more modern than mine ;-) What drive has 16 Mb? Curious
> here..
Seagates latest and greatest drives have a 4MB cache standard and an option
for 16MB. These are 10K RPM chetta drives.
--
Rod Grimes - KD7CAX @ CN85sl - (RWG25) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
