Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
An unexpected perf feature
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
PostgreSQL 9.3 beta: Federated databases and more
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 9, 2013
Runtime filesystem consistency checking
Posted Apr 4, 2012 12:59 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
More or less. This means that when you go from Linux 0.1 (with typical size of HDD 200-300MB) to Linux 3.0 (with typical size of HDD 2-4TB) filesystem slows by a factor of 100, not by a factor of 10'000. But 100x slowdown is still a lot.
Posted Apr 4, 2012 16:01 UTC (Wed) by wazoox (subscriber, #69624)
Posted Apr 4, 2012 19:41 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
Contemporary 4TB HDDs are especially slow because they use 5 plates (where your 1TB disks probably used 2 or 3). This means that not only you see the slowdown from growing number of tracks, you see additional slowdown from growing number of plates!
Thankfully in this direction 5 is the limit: I doubt we'll see return of 30 plates monsters like the infamous Winchester… all 3.5" HDDs to date had 5 plates or less.
Posted Apr 5, 2012 9:18 UTC (Thu) by misiu_mp (guest, #41936)
Posted Apr 5, 2012 10:00 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
More plates means more heads, with possibility for concurrency - that should increase sequential transfer speed.
Good idea. Sadly it's about ten years too late. Today's tracks are too small: when the head is on a track on one plate all other heads are not on this same track. In fact they are not on track at all. They just randomly drift between 2-3 tracks adjacent to each other. That's why you can only use one head actively (how can we use even one if it's all is so unstable? well, it's easy: there are active scheme which dynamically moves head to keep it on track).
If data is written cylinder-wise, the latency should be similar to one-plate disk.
Latency of seeks - yes, number of tracks - no. If you use the same plates then filesystem on a single plate HDD will be roughly five times faster then filesystem on five plates HDD.
That is the main reason we don't see that many of them.
The main reason we don't see many of them is cost. They are more expensive to produce and since they are less reliable they incur more warranty overhead. They are also slower, but this secondary problem.
Posted Apr 13, 2012 8:47 UTC (Fri) by ekj (guest, #1524)
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds