QUANTUM Message Board - Msg: 3445367

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : QUANTUM

QNTM 9.540

-2.7%

1:11 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Hungry Investor who wrote (7347)	2/16/1998 5:15:00 PM
From: John Biddle	Read Replies (1) of 9124

I don't feel beaten up at all. I went in knowing there was something wrong with my logic, or my underlying assumptions, and am interested in finding out where I made my mistake. I've been thinking about the performance of parallel reads and now think I know the answer. In a 7200rpm drive (high performer, since I'm talking about raising performance) the time to read a track is 0.139 ms. The difference between reading 16 heads from 8 platters in parallel (0.139 ms) vs in series (0.139 ms x 16 = 2.222 ms) is 2.083 ms, or about 20% that of doing another seek and waiting an average 1/2 rotation. Since this small benefit would only occur when reading large files, loading apps for example, it wouldn't even show up in a real-world test.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next