mirror of
https://github.com/erichelgeson/BlueSCSI.git
synced 2024-11-30 17:50:18 +00:00
Because people like to yell on twitter
parent
51c73e1458
commit
8130bf944f
37
Performance.md
Normal file
37
Performance.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
|
||||
# TLDR
|
||||
|
||||
When using the BlueSCSI on a Vintage Mac you can expect about `1024KB/sec` read, `900KB/sec` write, `1ms` seek. Keep reading to see what factors may influence your speed.
|
||||
|
||||
# Help us collect data
|
||||
|
||||
If you'd like to share, please [fill out this form with your own benchmark data](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScPQGpAXTiPiDZ_YyXqeCFk51yREVQ2pP43sESzV2b1NxAy6Q/viewform) to help us see patterns in performance.
|
||||
|
||||
# Influences on speed of BlueSCSI
|
||||
|
||||
These are 25-30 year old computers, there are many things that change the profile of the performance you get.
|
||||
|
||||
The main thing to remember is to enjoy your vintage computer.
|
||||
|
||||
## Testing software
|
||||
|
||||
Most users use [SCSI Director Pro 4](https://macintoshgarden.org/apps/scsi-director-pro-40) but other software may provide different results.
|
||||
|
||||
## Host machine
|
||||
|
||||
A PowerPC machine is going to have faster access than a Plus or SE.
|
||||
|
||||
## SD Format
|
||||
|
||||
Using exFAT as the format will provide a substantial increase in speed over FAT32.
|
||||
|
||||
## SD Card
|
||||
|
||||
Quality, name brand SD cards can provide a gain in performance over no name or fakes.
|
||||
|
||||
## BluePill
|
||||
|
||||
The CH32 clone does benchmark slightly better than the STM32, though it is a very small difference. Other clones, fakes, etc show little to no difference.
|
||||
|
||||
## Comparing to Spinning Disks
|
||||
|
||||
Spinning HDD have higher read/write speeds, but the BlueSCSI (and all modern SCSI SD solutions) "feel" faster due to the near instant seek times.
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user