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withdrawn.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
next 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