The previous post is example of I was talking about.
Try wait to forget what you have written there. Then return and read it again and follow the idea. Then you can get what I mean, as far as for you it will be easier than for others. Well, maybe it is because of very early morning. Finishing reading of sentence I sometimes almost forget what was its beginning about.
For mind safety I will follow here some parts only.
Once I have estimated relative radial positions of active magnetic surface. I have taken measured steady transfer speeds 80MB/s / 30MB/s of outer/inner tracks. I have got little more linear function percentage of capacity = f (positition). 50% of capacity was on my disk near 40% of linear position. But is will be disk dependent.
My small files sit next to MFT and folders.
I was not talking about "only access", but "mainly access". For 30kB file accessing can take nearly 15 times more than transferring. Or more or less, depending on disk and optimization of access and transfer speed. Interesting, but not surprising result of SATA NCQ testing ( Crystal disk mark ) was increased performance for very small files almost by factor 2.
We are saying similar ideas by different words.
No much sense in fixing small hole until big one is fixed. A chain is as strong as its weakest part. One of the weakest part of PC is classical disks. And one of the weakiest part of classical disks is access time. Unless file relative positions are optimized, no much sense in optimization of file absolute positions. Because optimization gain of speeding of median size file is much less than of faster accessing.
Fast disks are more forgiving as still being fast enough, Their weak status is less obvious.