Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.raspberry-pi > #9632
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.sys.raspberry-pi |
| Subject | Re: A new (and better?) kid on the block? |
| Date | 2015-09-13 11:45 -0400 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <mt45im$594$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <msh8kn$f8v$1@dont-email.me> <mshq3j$jbd$1@dont-email.me> <mshshk$spq$1@dont-email.me> <mt3n2r$den$1@dont-email.me> <ut5bva9hjd6voeipnqpbo44l0aihrps9f8@4ax.com> |
On 9/13/2015 11:39 AM, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: > On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:37:46 +0100, druck <news@druck.org.uk> declaimed the > following: > > >> SD cards may have high headline transfer speeds for large sequential >> transfers by they are far slower than a modest laptop drive for the >> small random transfers which you get when using them as the primary disc >> for an OS. >> > This would be the place to point out that Class 10 cards are rated > explicitly for large single streaming transfers (video written to a freshly > formatted card). Class 6/4/2 cards are still rated on smaller fragmented > I/O (still image cameras with some images deleted, MP3 music files). While > I would hope the top brand class 10 cards manage a class 6 (or at least 4) > response on fragmented conditions, there is no promise of such. I'm not clear on how that is a worst performance than a rotating hard drive. When you have random access on a hard drive the seek time dominates the performance. On writes this can be mitigated by a large buffer, but that won't work for all combinations. For reads, random accesses are the worst for a rotating drive. Performance drops like a rock. -- Rick
Back to comp.sys.raspberry-pi | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
A new (and better?) kid on the block? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-09-06 12:14 +0100
Re: A new (and better?) kid on the block? "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 12:40 +0100
Re: A new (and better?) kid on the block? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-09-06 17:38 +0100
Re: A new (and better?) kid on the block? Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2015-09-06 18:13 +0100
Re: A new (and better?) kid on the block? Andy Burns <usenet.feb2014@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2015-09-06 18:27 +0100
Re: A new (and better?) kid on the block? "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 18:20 +0100
Re: A new (and better?) kid on the block? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2015-09-08 00:44 +0000
Re: A new (and better?) kid on the block? Torfinn Ingolfsen <tingo@home.no> - 2015-09-08 18:18 +0200
Re: A new (and better?) kid on the block? "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 18:23 +0100
Re: A new (and better?) kid on the block? druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2015-09-13 12:37 +0100
Re: A new (and better?) kid on the block? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-13 11:39 -0400
Re: A new (and better?) kid on the block? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 11:45 -0400
Re: A new (and better?) kid on the block? Dom <domafp@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2015-09-13 17:45 +0100
csiph-web