Hi!
> If not, then the drive could by all means optimise the access pattern
> provided it acked the data or provided the results in the same order as the
> instructions were given. This would probably shorten the time for a new
> pathological set (distributed evenly across the disk surface, but all on
> the worst-possible angular offset compared to the previous) to (8ms seek
> time + 5ms rotational delay) * 4000 writes ~= 52 seconds (compared with
> around 120 seconds for the previous set with rotational delay factored in).
> Great, so you only need half as big a power store to guarantee writing that
> much data, but it's still too much. Even with a 15000rpm drive and 5ms
> seek times, it would still be too much.
Drive can trivially seek to reserved track, and flush data on it. All within
25msec. Then, move data to proper location on next powerup. Pavel
-- Philips Velo 1: 1"x4"x8", 300gram, 60, 12MB, 40bogomips, linux, mutt, details at http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/velo/index.html.- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 15 2001 - 21:00:07 EST