about my plots



  • I : 11682068578610233358_900000001_5722200_5722200

    J : 11682068578610233358_1000000001_5722200_5722200

    M : 11682068578610233358_1300000001_7627176_7627176

    N : 11682068578610233358_1400000001_3808784_3808784

    O : 11682068578610233358_1200000001_5713560_5713560

    Q : 11682068578610233358_1700000001_5722096_5722096

    R : 11682068578610233358_1600000001_7629848_7629848

    S : 11682068578610233358_1900000001_11444992_11444992

    U : 11682068578610233358_2100000001_7627176_7627176

    V : 11682068578610233358_1100000001_11444992_11444992

    W : 11682068578610233358_2300000001_11444992_11444992

    X : 11682068578610233358_2400000001_7629848_7629848

    Y : 11682068578610233358_2500000001_7629848_7629848

    Z : 11682068578610233358_2600000001_7629848_7629848

    K : 11682068578610233358_1500000001_7629848_7629848

    this is a list of my plotted external disks.now i'm wondering if the 2e part of numbers should follow in sequence going from hd to hd
    so 1e hd 900...1
    2e hd 1000....1
    3e hd 11000....1 and so on so there wouldnt be any gaps in the list

    just asking because those 15 (14 and 1 being plotted) hd take a good 120s to be all read in and if that number order would maybe reduce that time a bit or if it doesnt matter at all ?


  • admin

    @nightwolf It's only the total capacity that matters, gaps between drives does not make a difference.



  • i'm glad to read that...........now i'm working on the readspead to go down......i got it down to 108 seconds to read 30 tb


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Burst - Efficient HDD Mining was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.