From: Phillip Susi <psusi@cfl.rr.com>
To: Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@gmail.com>
Cc: Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Subject: Re: floppy question of the hour
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 17:49:18 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <483C81DE.8060002@cfl.rr.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200805240852.58268.gene.heskett@gmail.com>
Gene Heskett wrote:
> This is a 250 kilobaud data rate format, the maximum the WD-1773 FDC chip in the
> target machine can handle, with 18, 256 byte sectors per track, two sides=73728
> bits to write a track, /250000 (baud rate)=0.294912 seconds to write one full
> tracks worth of data. 80 tracks=23.59296 seconds to write the whole disk if it
> were streaming, but it takes 3 minutes and change? And nearly 2 to read it
> back as above? Odd. With the interleave of 3, I could see 75 seconds maybe
> for efficient methods. I also understand this is a one size fits all scene
> too, and that there must be compromises.
>
> I format these DD discs in the target machine with an interleave factor of 3 cuz
> that machines cpu is running at as low as .89MHZ and can't handle the read data
> any faster than that.
>
> Is this non-1 interleave responsible for the slowness of the writes or reads on
> this box? I can control the interleave on the target box, so I suppose I could
> test that effect easily enough.
Yes, the interleave slows you down, since after accessing sector 1, the
head must wait to pass over 3 other sectors before finally reaching
sector 2, therefore, you can only read 1/4 of the sectors on the track
each revolution of the disk. That leaves 4 revolutions at 300 rpm
giving 0.8s to read a track, or 64 seconds to read all 80 tracks, plus
seek time. That still does not explain 3 minutes though... not sure
what else could be slowing you down.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-05-27 21:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-05-24 1:14 floppy question of the hour Gene Heskett
2008-05-24 9:28 ` Stefan Richter
2008-05-24 12:52 ` Gene Heskett
2008-05-27 21:49 ` Phillip Susi [this message]
2008-05-27 22:26 ` Gene Heskett
2008-06-01 19:00 ` Jan Engelhardt
2008-06-02 0:50 ` Gene Heskett
2008-06-02 10:28 ` Kay Sievers
2008-05-28 13:42 ` Lennart Sorensen
2008-05-28 19:38 ` Phillip Susi
2008-05-28 19:59 ` Lennart Sorensen
2008-05-28 21:58 ` Gene Heskett
2008-05-28 21:50 ` Gene Heskett
2008-05-28 21:46 ` Gene Heskett
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=483C81DE.8060002@cfl.rr.com \
--to=psusi@cfl.rr.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=gene.heskett@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.