Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 24 Dec 2002 20:26:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 24 Dec 2002 20:26:29 -0500 Received: from 5-116.ctame701-1.telepar.net.br ([200.193.163.116]:54681 "EHLO 5-116.ctame701-1.telepar.net.br") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 24 Dec 2002 20:26:29 -0500 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 23:34:26 -0200 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: riel@imladris.surriel.com To: jw schultz cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Horrible drive performance under concurrent i/o jobs (dlh problem?) In-Reply-To: <20021224172122.GB30929@pegasys.ws> Message-ID: References: <000d01c2a8b6$3d102e20$941e1c43@joe> <20021224172122.GB30929@pegasys.ws> X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 976 Lines: 24 On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, jw schultz wrote: > The rotational frequency should be 7200*60/sec which makes > for 2.31 us which would produce an average rotational > latency of 1.16us if such a condition even still applies. That would be 432000 rotations per second, meaning that the edge of a 3.5" disk would travel at almost 120 kilometers per second and be stressed by some pretty impressive G forces, which I'm too lazy to calculate. Good thing a 7200 RPM disk only spins 120 times a second, that's a lot safer in consumer applications. ;) Rik -- Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH". http://www.surriel.com/ http://guru.conectiva.com/ Current spamtrap: october@surriel.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/