Post AOjHa96PUh2twgrp7A by internetbrainrot@poa.st
 (DIR) More posts by internetbrainrot@poa.st
 (DIR) Post #AOjGZFmP5BKCPYWI76 by deprecated_ii@poa.st
       2022-10-19T15:20:51.372707Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       is hdparm accuratekinda don't believe I'm getting close to 200 MB/s read from my spinning drives
       
 (DIR) Post #AOjHa96PUh2twgrp7A by internetbrainrot@poa.st
       2022-10-19T15:31:51.260223Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @deprecated_ii I get 200MB/s on my newer drive according to CrystalDiskMark, at least if you're talking about sequential read.
       
 (DIR) Post #AOjHrQ4fe71XVRI3ay by deprecated_ii@poa.st
       2022-10-19T15:35:20.582944Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @internetbrainrot I used crystaldiskmark on these spinning drives to test them when I got them, but it was over USB 3, so it's possible that was bottlenecking them somewhere. they're internally mounted nowI just assumed the USB 3 thing was fine because I have no trouble hitting like 500 MB/s over USB 3 with SSDs. maybe it's a caching issue with spinning disks or something, idk
       
 (DIR) Post #AOjHwXT5aDubsy9XAO by ProfessionalNEET@poa.st
       2022-10-19T15:36:16.400869Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @deprecated_ii -t basically shows max sequential read on the fastest part of the disk, which has nothing to do with actual performance. You can use -t --offset X (number of megabytes) to read along the different portions of the disk. Then infer seek time from actual use and you get a decent ballpark of disk performance.
       
 (DIR) Post #AOjIDleM6pVknBdc0G by deprecated_ii@poa.st
       2022-10-19T15:39:22.967152Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @ProfessionalNEET that makes senseI was just doing a sanity check against an external drive, but I've never used hdparm before so I was surprised to see such big numbers on these drives