Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #351339
| From | Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Re: The first copy ( of a 4 gig file ) takes 11 seconds. |
| Date | 2016-04-22 19:11 -0400 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <nfeas2$7mv$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (7 earlier) <nfe4q6$hjs$1@dont-email.me> <nfe6ec$mr0$1@dont-email.me> <nfe70b$sdo$2@dont-email.me> <nfe7tv$vho$1@dont-email.me> <nfea9f$61h$3@dont-email.me> |
On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 01:01:15 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > Richard King wrote: > >> On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 00:05:11 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> >>> Richard King wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> Other word: Buffer >>> >>> And now go playing on the highway >> >> Buffer is sometimes referred to buffer cache. >> You know what I meant. >> >> Let's make it simple so even you can understand. >> > > Idiot Snipping and running just like a true Linux "advocate". Trying to protect your track record of being almost 100 percent incorrect on technical issues? Me thinks so. You should head on back to the village square where they pay you to make balloons for the kids. -- RK
Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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