GAmoore@... <GAmoore@...> wrote: >: Regarding sustained rates : Wouldn't you get more throughput if you had two >: drives hooked to firewire - so that the delays in head repositioning on one >: drive allow the bandwidth for the other. From: amgmamgma <agreenbu@...> >Well, the drives won't coordinate their efforts exactly, but sure. The bottom >line is that you won't get more total throughput than the bus allows, so >the bus will eventually become a bottleneck as you add more devices do it. That isn't a factor unless you're trying to do something silly like record at 192. We don't care about sustained rates or bandwidth, we care about access time. >If I have two drives that are capable of putting out 30 MB/s each, and I >read from both of them simultaneously at the same priority across 400Mb >Firewire, the throughput on each will be capped at somewhere below 25 MB/s >average (allowing for protocol overhead). My total throughput will be >greater than that of either drive individually, though. You could build a >RAID-0 array out of external firewire drives and probably get pretty close >to pushing the max throughput of the bus. According to Stupid 8-track on the VSL forum, who ran extensive tests, RAIDs are actually slower on Macs. -- Nick Batzdorf 818/905-9101, cell 590-9101, fax 905-5434
Message
Re: Re: defrag by booting off another computer
2005-02-11 by Nick Batzdorf
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.