| 1 |
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:40:11 -0500 |
| 2 |
"Joshua Murphy" <poisonbl@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
= |
| 5 |
> One thing that comes to mind... if one of those files is primarily |
| 6 |
> closer to the start of the disk than the other, and the drive tapers |
| 7 |
> down on speed as bad as some... well, that's one variable you can't |
| 8 |
> easily resolve. Whether that would influence enough to matter, |
| 9 |
> compared to seeks, is questionable though. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Yes. That has crossed my mind too, but I can't figure out if there's |
| 14 |
anything I alone can do about it. It would taint the results in a very bad |
| 15 |
way, because it is impossible to catch by increasing the number of |
| 16 |
repetitions. If my memory serves well its called "systematic error" in |
| 17 |
statistics. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I'm open to suggestions. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
P.S. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
The way to eliminate the influence of this factor is to find |
| 25 |
many other people to make the test and share the results. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Best regards, |
| 31 |
Daniel |
Archives