From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <cae68b045335522b8d7bfbdf9260bb3b@hamnavoe.com>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
From: Richard Miller <9fans@hamnavoe.com>
Date: Tue,  4 Oct 2011 13:33:27 +0100
In-Reply-To: <ed2a6248582a8cb9bcbb961923c99665@chula.quanstro.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] copying fossil filesystem to a bigger disk
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 318edddc-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> 250000*4096/20.78 = 49 mb/s.  this is less than 1/2 the available
> bandwidth giving the drive lots of wiggle room.  and since you're
> doing sequential i/o the drive can do write combining.

Is there any experiment I can do (not involving a crowbar and a
microscope) to find out the real physical sector size?  Bigger
transfers get more of the bandwidth, but then a smaller proportion
of the transfer needs read/modify/write.  I could do random addressing
but then I would expect seek time to dominate.

Not that it matters (my drive works fine), but I'm curious!