Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #351309

Re: The first copy ( of a 4 gig file ) takes 11 seconds.

Show all headers | View raw

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 23:27:46 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

>  wrote:
> 
>> You ( Mr. DFS ) replied ( to Peter Köhlmann ):
>>> > So how do you propose being able to copy 3.5 GB in 3.5 seconds when the
>>> > drive needs 7 seconds just to read the data? Much less write it again.
>>> 
>>> What will you do when Relf posts a vid of it happening in 3.5 seconds?
>> 
>> As it turns out, the first copy ( of a 4 gig file ) takes 11 seconds;
> 
> It naturally does. You can't bypass the physical limitations of the drive
> 
>> subsequent copies take less than 3 seconds.
> 
> Wrong. They /seem/ to happen in 3 seconds. In reality, you are 
> reading/writing to buffers in RAM which happened to get filled with the 
> first read/write. The real read/write still takes those 11 seconds, only it 
> happens in the background now. Trip the power supply when windows says it is 
> done and see your data vanish in a puff of smoke, as it is not yet written
> 
>> I don't know why or how. 
> 
> Naturally you don't. You are a windows user. In short, you are stupid
> 
>> I've got 16 gigs of 1.9 GigHz RAM.
> 
> See? Lots of buffer. Even windows by now is using at least part of the RAM 
> in a intelligent way (as linux did much longer). Which is: Fill all RAM not 
> needed by Programs and their data with stuff buffered from disk. Chances 
> are, it will be needed again

One word:
Cache.

Same reason from a fresh boot a given program starts in x seconds and
after quitting the program and starting again it starts in x-y
seconds.

-- 
RK

Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

The Inevitable Death of the Windows PC Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2016-04-20 11:06 +0100
  Re: I don't have to hold no fucking phone. Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2016-04-20 11:57 +0100
    Re: I don't have to hold no fucking phone. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-20 13:49 +0200
      Re: I don't have to hold no fucking phone. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-20 10:07 -0400
        Re: I don't have to hold no fucking phone. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-20 19:12 +0200
          Copying a 3.5 gig file, locally, SATA III is not a (limiting) factor. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-04-20 11:57 -0700
            Re: Copying a 3.5 gig file, locally, SATA III is not a (limiting) factor. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-20 23:42 +0200
              Copying a 3.5 gig file from/to the Samsung 850 EVO isn't SATA III limited. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-04-20 14:55 -0700
                Re: Copying a 3.5 gig file from/to the Samsung 850 EVO isn't SATA III limited. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-21 00:04 +0200
                Why does it take less than 3 seconds to make the second copy of the 4 gig file ? Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-04-20 17:08 -0700
                Re: Why does it take less than 3 seconds to make the second copy of the 4 gig file ? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-21 09:00 +0200
                Re: Why does it take less than 3 seconds to make the second copy of the 4 gig file ? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-21 17:00 +0000
                Re: Why does it take less than 3 seconds to make the second copy of the 4 gig file ? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-21 19:05 +0200
            Re: Copying a 3.5 gig file, locally, SATA III is not a (limiting) factor. Incubus <incubus9536612@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 06:07 -0700
          Re: I don't have to hold no fucking phone. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-22 10:09 -0400
            The first copy ( of a 4 gig file ) takes 11 seconds. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-04-22 11:55 -0700
              Re: The first copy ( of a 4 gig file ) takes 11 seconds. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-22 23:27 +0200
                Re: The first copy ( of a 4 gig file ) takes 11 seconds. Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 17:55 -0400
                Re: The first copy ( of a 4 gig file ) takes 11 seconds. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-23 00:05 +0200
                Re: The first copy ( of a 4 gig file ) takes 11 seconds. Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 18:20 -0400
                Re: The first copy ( of a 4 gig file ) takes 11 seconds. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-23 01:01 +0200
                Re: The first copy ( of a 4 gig file ) takes 11 seconds. Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 19:11 -0400
    Re: I don't have to hold no fucking phone. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-20 07:05 -0500
      Re: I don't have to hold no fucking phone. Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-20 12:28 +0000
    Re: The subjective preferences of the dying minority Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2016-04-20 13:58 +0100
  Re: The Inevitable Death of the Windows PC DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-20 10:18 -0400
  Re: The Inevitable Death of the Windows PC ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 17:09 +0000
    Re: The Inevitable Death of the Windows PC Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-20 10:38 -0700
      Re: The Inevitable Death of the Windows PC Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-22 12:11 +0100
  Re: The Inevitable Death of the Windows PC 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-20 20:51 +0000
  Re: The Inevitable Death of the Windows PC JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2016-04-20 15:53 -0500
    Re: The Inevitable Death of the Windows PC 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-20 22:01 +0000
      Re: The Inevitable Death of the Windows PC Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-22 12:14 +0100
        Re: The Inevitable Death of the Windows PC GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-22 16:37 -0600

csiph-web