> From: Richard Elling [mailto:richard.ell...@gmail.com] > > > Also, the concept of "faster tracks of the HDD" is also incorrect. Yes, > > there was a time when HDD speeds were limited by rotational speed and > > magnetic density, so the outer tracks of the disk could serve up more data > > because more magnetic material passed over the head in each rotation. > But > > nowadays, the hard drive sequential speed is limited by the head speed, > > which is invariably right around 1Gbps. So the inner and outer sectors of > > the HDD are equally fast - the outer sectors are actually less magnetically > > dense because the head can't handle it. And the random IO speed is > limited > > by head seek + rotational latency, where seek is typically several times > > longer than latency. > > Disagree. My data, and the vendor specs, continue to show different > sequential > media bandwidth speed for inner vs outer cylinders.
Any reference? I know, as I sit and dd from some disk | pv > /dev/null, it will tell me something like 1.0Gbps... I periodically check its progress while it's in progress, and while it varies a little (say, sometimes 1.0, 1.1, 1.2) it goes up and down throughout the process. There is no noticeable difference between the early, mid, and late behavior, sequentially reading the whole disk. If the performance of the outer tracks is better than the performance of the inner tracks due to limitations of magnetic density or rotation speed (not being limited by the head speed or bus speed), then the sequential performance of the drive should increase as a square function, going toward the outer tracks. c = pi * r^2 It is my belief, based on specs I've previously looked at, that mfgrs break the drive down into zones. So, something like the inner 20% of the tracks will have magnetic layout pattern A, and the next 20% will have magnetic layout pattern B, and so forth... Within a single magnetic layout pattern, jumping from individual track to individual track can yield a difference of performance, but it's not a huge step from one to the next. And when you transition from layout pattern to layout pattern, the pattern just repeats itself again. They're trying to optimize, to a first order, ensure the performance limitations are mostly caused by head and/or bus speed. If those are the bottlenecks, let them be the bottlenecks, and at least solve all the other problems that are solvable. So, small variations of sequential performance are possible, jumping from track to track, but based on what I've seen, the maximum performance difference from the absolute slowest track to the absolute fastest track (which may or may not have any relation to inner vs outer) ... maximum variation on-par with 10% performance difference. Not a square function. > OTOH, you're not trying to get high performance from an HDD are you? That > game is over. Lots of us still have to live with HDD's, due to capacity and cost requirements. We accept a relative definition of "high performance," and still want to get all the performance we can out of whatever device we're using. Even if there exists a faster device somewhere in the world. Also, for sequential performance, HDD's are on-par with, and often better than SSD's. (For now.) While many SSD's publish specs including something like "220 MB/s" which is higher than HDD's can reach... SSD's publish their maximum performance, which is not typical performance. After you use them for a month, they slow down. Often to half or worse, of the speed they originally were able to run. Which is... as I say... on-par with, or worse than, the sequential speed of an HDD. Even crappy SSD's can have random IO worse than HDD's. Just benchmark any high-cost top-tier USB3 flash memory stick, and you'll see what I mean. ;-) The only SSD's that are faster than HDD's in any way are *actual* internal sas/sata/etc SSD's, which are faster than HDD in terms of random IOPS and maybe sequential. _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss