Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!utah-gr!utah-cs!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!mybest!moray!uhnix1!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Request to Commodore (Bad Blocks)
Keywords: trackdisk floppy format
Message-ID: <2666@sugar.uu.net>
Date: 21 Sep 88 10:41:08 GMT
References: <8891@cup.portal.com> <5660016@hpcvca.HP.COM> <4774@cbmvax.UUCP>
Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston, TX
Lines: 17

In article <4774@cbmvax.UUCP>, ditto@cbmvax.UUCP (Michael "Ford" Ditto) writes:
> Also, your figures don't take into account that the 1.1 rotations of
> trackdisk result in up to eleven sector I/Os ("up to" because I won't
> assume that all the data on that track would be useful at that time),
> while the index-synced method would take 1.5 rotations to read ONE sector.

Not true. He's not suggesting changing anything in the way you read a disk.
He just wants to make the writes sync to the index hole so that damage to
the disk won't result in trashing the whole sector. Thus, read times don't
change at all and access is still 11 sectors at a time.

This 11 sector business, by the way, would make more sense if you cached
tracks for a while. What does it profit me to read in 11 sectors at a time
when I'm just going to throw away 10 of them?
-- 
		Peter da Silva  `-_-'  peter@sugar.uu.net
		 Have you hugged  U  your wolf today?