On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 02:41:20PM -0500, Ernie Schroder wrote:
> I'm getting ready to take Gentoo_2 off line and replace mobo and
> processor I was looking at hdd's this morning and saw Western Digital
> 80 and 120 gig udma 133 drives at both the same pricethe difference is
> that the 80 gig has 8 megs of cache and the 120 2gigs.both claim a seek
^^^^^ Gigs???
> time of 9.1ms. could some one voice an opinion here.(as if I have to
> look far on this list for an opinion :) ) Which would you buy?
More cache is always better performance, but if it means you can get the
extra 40G.... Kinda hard to say. I got myself some of the WD 80G/8m
drives a couple of months ago and have been quite happy. There was a
bigger price difference between the 80 and 120 at that point though :)
Tough decision, I guess it really comes down to space or performance.
Granted, I can't give you quantitative evidence of the performance of
the 8m vs 2m cache.
My hdparm results:
phoenix alan # hdparm /dev/hdf
/dev/hdf:
multcount = 16 (on)
IO_support = 0 (default 16-bit)
unmaskirq = 0 (off)
using_dma = 1 (on)
keepsettings = 0 (off)
readonly = 0 (off)
readahead = 8 (on)
geometry = 155061/16/63, sectors = 156301488, start = 0
phoenix alan # hdparm -Tt /dev/hdf
/dev/hdf:
Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 0.80 seconds =159.60 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 2.07 seconds = 30.86 MB/sec
phoenix alan # dmesg | grep hdf
hdf: WDC WD800JB-00CRA1, ATA DISK drive
hdf: 156301488 sectors (80026 MB) w/8192KiB Cache, CHS=155061/16/63, UDMA(100)
Alan
--
Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://arcterex.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"The only thing that experience teaches us is that experience teaches
us nothing. -- Andre Maurois (Emile Herzog)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
