Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Blog | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 03:18:06PM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > > From: markw at mohawksoft.com [mailto:markw at mohawksoft.com] > > > > If you can get more than 160MB/s (sustained) on anything other than exotic > > hardware, I'd be surprised. 1Gbit/sec per disk sustained is currently not > > possible with COTS hardware that is available. > > > > Transfer rate is not "sustained," and "peak" is not "sustained." Yes, if > > can can manage to read/write to disk cache, you can get cool performance, > > but if you are doing backups, you will blow out cache quite quickly. > > Go measure it before you say anymore. Because I've spent a lot of time in > the last 4 years benchmarking disks. I can say the typical sequential > throughput, read or write, for nearly all disks (7.2krpm sata up to 15krpm > sas) is 1.0 Gbit/sec. Sustained sequential read/write. For let's say, the > entire disk. Or at least tens of GB. > > Even laptops (7.2krpm sata dell) are able to sustain this speed. Erm. 1 Gb/s * 1024 M/G * 1B/8b = 128MB/s Anything which can do 160 is clearly capable of doing 128. You two are arguing in different directions. -dsr-
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |