Topic: A "solution" To The Dvd9 "problem" (Read 196 times)

twistedsymphony · « **Reply #16 on:** September 14, 2005, 05:08:00 AM »

QUOTE(kendrid @ Sep 14 2005, 12:38 AM)

...MS has stated that they will use network storage if it is available, they just didn't say exactly how it would be used. They could be thinking about doing this. I wish I knew which 360 video they mentioned it in...

{Sephiroth} · « **Reply #17 on:** September 14, 2005, 08:14:00 AM »

The problem with being able to network with an unmodded 360 would be that it would screw up the live achievements section due to savegame hackers. So I spose it would be good to have savadata on live servers

Bogus8 · « **Reply #18 on:** September 14, 2005, 11:02:00 AM »

QUOTE(kendrid @ Sep 13 2005, 08:21 AM)

A 100 Mbps network woudldn't have any latency and would be faster than the optical drives. <snip>

Bogus8 · « **Reply #19 on:** September 14, 2005, 01:32:00 PM »

Bogus8 · « **Reply #20 on:** September 14, 2005, 01:55:00 PM »

) man some people can't admit an idea they had might have been ill concieved and just dumb after people shed better light on the flaws of it

Bogus8 · « **Reply #21 on:** September 14, 2005, 02:10:00 PM »

Never said there was... I just thought it odd that you adimitly defended an incorrect possition so strongly all this time... it's not the greatest of traits and just for your own sake it would be wise to reflect on that (I have been there before it fustrates people around you).

Bogus8 · « **Reply #22 on:** September 14, 2005, 02:45:00 PM »

QUOTE(kendrid @ Sep 14 2005, 03:34 PM)

It is not an incorrect position. If I kept stating that a 100mb network is faster than an optical drive - that would be an incorrect position.

Bogus8 · « **Reply #23 on:** September 14, 2005, 03:00:00 PM »

Bogus8 · « **Reply #24 on:** September 14, 2005, 04:58:00 PM »

This is true... but 9MB about as fast as I get and you've heard others say 7MB is also IDEAL just like a 12X CAN do the full 12X. You also are adding seek time of the drive to latency in the network and the entire subsytem of the computer and the xbox... through the pci bus, blah blah blah. So if the moon is aligned with jupitor and you have a completely idle kick ass machine and a completely dead network with good quality hardware then you might get optimal transfers and "seek" times. Also that is 9MB on large files.. it's MUCH MUCH MUCH slower with the smaller files due to all the handshaking that takes place... I forget what we averaged my buddies back up(several games) transfer at.. but we took the total number of files and divided by the size of that total and got the average size of the file we then found how fast on average that file tranfered (I think it wasn't good 2-3mb at best) and used that number to divide of the total size of the backups and it was gonna take x hours... we ended up being pretty much right on the money.

so seek times over the network involve lots of overhead depending on the size of the files.

Bogus8 · « **Reply #25 on:** September 14, 2005, 05:22:00 PM »

Just talked with my buddy, it was a 72gig transfer and it took 9hours and 43 minutes. So if my math is correct that is an average of 2.05MB/second. This was from HD to HD via Flash FXP and the large files were moving at 9mb... I think this was also useing a crossover cable so nothing else is even in the chain.

KAGE360 · « **Reply #26 on:** September 15, 2005, 10:18:00 AM »

QUOTE

In three years when games are 50GB it would take up a lot of local space

i really dont see this happening, look of how game size didnt really jump that big in the last generation.

and didnt M_hael say that disk space really wont be much of an issue in the next gen?? sony having blue-ray is nothing more then just a useless feature to show off that wont be fully exploited to me

Author Topic: A "solution" To The Dvd9 "problem" (Read 196 times)