Dec 27, 2020 3:03:02 AM Frantisek Rysanek <frantisek.rysa...@post.cz>:
> On 27 Dec 2020 at 6:42, Jon Brase wrote: > >> OK, if modern SATA gets 75, then 25 isn't too concerning. I was >> worried it might be more like an order of magnitude (or two) >> difference. >> > Um... note that real HDDs have a memory buffer, acting as a > write-back cache. Not sure how much RAM the CF cards have, > possibly a couple hundred kilobytes. > 10-15 years ago, not sure if 2 or 8 MB was the norm in spinning rust. Mostly my point is that the old PATA drive I'm replacing isn't going to outperform a modern drive, so if the random access performance of a modern drive is only 75 IOps / sec, then my old drive isn't going to outstrip the 25 that a CF card gets by too much, so hopefully I won't lose too much performance replacing the old drive with CF (unless a new CF card can be expected to have enough less cache than a 15-25 year old spinning rust drive to make a difference). But yeah, using a modern SATA drive with lots of cache is an intriguing idea. _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
