> Yeah. My drive shows up as UDMA133 also. What I did notice is that > my WD Raptor was slightly outperformed a few times on UFS2 by > my actual > ATA-100 Western Digital drive. This seems somewhat bad as the Raptor > costs a hell of a lot more and one would hope that it would pound the > ATA-100 drive pretty thoroughly. > > Even the CPU overheads on both drives were about the same. Maybe its > that > 8MB caching :). I haven't found a good reason yet.
Keep in mind that you are dealing with 36GB vs. 60 or 80GB platter density. The Raptor ought to be quicker but the older WD drive could be faster. Especially in long sequential reads. -Will _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
