on Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 11:14:08PM -0500, MaD dUCK (madduck@madduck.net) wrote:
> also sprach kmself@ix.netcom.com (on Fri, 02 Mar 2001 08:08:47PM -0800):
> > Advice I've heard (no emperical evidence myself) is that higher
> > utilization is best placed toward the physical midpoint of the disk
> > radius. This tends to equalize head movement in and out. Unless heads
> > park in either an inboard or outboard position?
>
> mh. interesting. this is news to me...
The compromise is between linear track density (moderately high) and
seek time (minimized), for center-positioned tracks.
In the Multi Disk System Tuning HOWTO:
http://www.nyx.net/~sgjoen/disk.html#physical-track-positioning
In most cases track 0 is at the outermost track and this is the
general assumption most people use. Still, it should be kept in mind
that there are no guarantees this is so.
Inner
tracks are usually slow in transfer, and lying at one end of the
seeking position it is also slow to seek to.
This is more suitable to the low end directories such as DOS,
root and print spools.
Middle
tracks are on average faster with respect to transfers than
inner tracks and being in the middle also on average faster to
seek to.
This characteristics is ideal for the most demanding parts such
as swap, / tmp and /var/tmp.
Outer
tracks have on average even faster transfer characteristics but
like the inner tracks are at the end of the seek so
statistically it is equally slow to seek to as the inner tracks.
Large files such as libraries would benefit from a place here.
Cheers.
--
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal
http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org
Attachment:
pgpDhKGrxOggz.pgp
Description: PGP signature