Ivan Gyurdiev wrote:
>> 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.
/sbin/hdparm -Tt /dev/sda
/dev/sda:
Timing cached reads: 5428 MB in 2.00 seconds = 2713.83 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 174 MB in 3.00 seconds = 58.00 MB/sec
-----------------
/sbin/hdparm -Tt /dev/hda
/dev/hda:
Timing cached reads: 5532 MB in 2.00 seconds = 2765.83 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 90 MB in 3.01 seconds = 29.92 MB/sec
----
this has more to do with the cpu/memory speed, but nothing with the
interface
I have a AMD64 with DDR474Mhz Ram and getting the speeds listed above.