All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "John William" <jw2357@hotmail.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2048 byte/sector problems with kernel 2.4
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 04:37:56	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <F38vnbEG10Gai4omRXf000005a9@hotmail.com> (raw)

On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Harvey Fishman wrote:
>On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
>
>> > I also tried it with 2.2.18 there it works but it seems to be >utterly 
>> > slow. I'm using kernel 2.4.2(XFS version to be precise).
>>
>>M/O disks are slow. At a minimum make sure you are using a physical >block 
>>size of 2048 bytes when using 2048 byte media and plenty of memory to 
>> >cache stuff when reading. Seek times on M/O media are pretty poor
>
>Another thing making for the snailicity of MO drives is that writing is >a 
>two pass operation. It is very like core memory; first you write the >spot 
>to a known state, and then you write the data. So you have an average 
>latency of 25 mS. for write operations and 8.33 mS. for read >operations. 
>There WERE direct overwrite media for a while that would, in theory, be 
>able to write the data directly, but a combination of high cost, >limited 
>sources, and strong questions about the permanence of the recorded data 
>severely limited the demand for these and I think that they have been 
>withdrawn.
>
>Harvey

No, direct overwrite disks are expensive, but they are still available. I do 
not know of any, and have not heard of any problems related to direct 
overwrite technology. For some reason M/O never really caught on in the US, 
and the high price of direct overwrite disks is what seems to be killing 
them off. I have a bunch I use for backup and have never had any problems.

Slow is a relative term. Compared to a Seagate X15? Yes, a M/O drive is 
probably slower. Compared to an 8X CD burner? No, my 640MB and 1.3GB M/O 
drives are quite a bit faster, particularly for random writes. For most 
applications, M/O is designed to compete with the latter, rather than the 
former.

People need to remember that M/O drives are meant to compete with CD-R or 
CD-RW as a moderate capacity, highly robust storage medium for archiving and 
backup. But it is somewhat annoying that 2.4.x doesn't (yet) support their 
2K sector sizes correctly.

- John

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com


             reply	other threads:[~2001-04-04  4:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2001-04-04  4:37 John William [this message]
2001-04-04 19:39 ` 2048 byte/sector problems with kernel 2.4 Giuliano Pochini
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-04-03 21:34 Jurgen Kramer
2001-04-03 21:58 ` Alan Cox
2001-04-03 22:48   ` Harvey Fishman
2001-04-04  9:24 ` Giuliano Pochini

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=F38vnbEG10Gai4omRXf000005a9@hotmail.com \
    --to=jw2357@hotmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /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.