public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.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withdrawn.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox