Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 21:52:52 -0800 From: David Schultz <dschultz@uclink.Berkeley.EDU> To: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Cc: "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au>, Chuck Robey <chuckr@chuckr.org>, Kenneth Culver <culverk@yumyumyum.org>, "Wilkinson, Alex" <Alex.Wilkinson@dsto.defence.gov.au>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [hardware] Tagged Command Queuing or Larger Cache ? Message-ID: <20021031055252.GB26692@HAL9000.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <20021030012824.8E54B2A88D@canning.wemm.org> References: <20021029103133.GA18812@HAL9000.homeunix.com> <20021030012824.8E54B2A88D@canning.wemm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thus spake Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>: > > > Actually, not even then. Modern IDE drives only write entire tracks at a > > > time. If you modify a single sector, then the drive has to read the entire > > > track into the buffer, in-place edit the sector, and then rewrite the entir > e > > > track. [...] > ie: if writing to every 10th or 20th (or whatever) sector is just as slow > as writing to every sector with write caching turned off, then you have a > track-write drive. This is because every single sector write causes the > entire track to be written. I remember you mentioning this trick the last time this topic came up. I was hoping someone had the results of running this test on some actual drives. ;-) Another strategy, I suppose, would be to look at which patents the drives claim to use. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021031055252.GB26692>