Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 00:39:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 00:38:47 -0400 Received: from f38.law3.hotmail.com ([209.185.241.38]:51729 "EHLO hotmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 00:38:42 -0400 X-Originating-IP: [65.25.188.54] From: "John William" To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2048 byte/sector problems with kernel 2.4 Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 04:37:56 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Apr 2001 04:37:56.0949 (UTC) FILETIME=[0544F850:01C0BCC1] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Harvey Fishman wrote: >On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Alan Cox wrote: > >> > I also tried it with 2.2.18 there it works but it seems to be >utterly >> > slow. I'm using kernel 2.4.2(XFS version to be precise). >> >>M/O disks are slow. At a minimum make sure you are using a physical >block >>size of 2048 bytes when using 2048 byte media and plenty of memory to >> >cache stuff when reading. Seek times on M/O media are pretty poor > >Another thing making for the snailicity of MO drives is that writing is >a >two pass operation. It is very like core memory; first you write the >spot >to a known state, and then you write the data. So you have an average >latency of 25 mS. for write operations and 8.33 mS. for read >operations. >There WERE direct overwrite media for a while that would, in theory, be >able to write the data directly, but a combination of high cost, >limited >sources, and strong questions about the permanence of the recorded data >severely limited the demand for these and I think that they have been >withdrawn. > >Harvey No, direct overwrite disks are expensive, but they are still available. I do not know of any, and have not heard of any problems related to direct overwrite technology. For some reason M/O never really caught on in the US, and the high price of direct overwrite disks is what seems to be killing them off. I have a bunch I use for backup and have never had any problems. Slow is a relative term. Compared to a Seagate X15? Yes, a M/O drive is probably slower. Compared to an 8X CD burner? No, my 640MB and 1.3GB M/O drives are quite a bit faster, particularly for random writes. For most applications, M/O is designed to compete with the latter, rather than the former. People need to remember that M/O drives are meant to compete with CD-R or CD-RW as a moderate capacity, highly robust storage medium for archiving and backup. But it is somewhat annoying that 2.4.x doesn't (yet) support their 2K sector sizes correctly. - John _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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/