Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 12:41:04 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 12:40:44 -0500 Received: from smtp2.sentex.ca ([199.212.134.9]:34574 "EHLO smtp2.sentex.ca") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 12:40:34 -0500 Message-ID: <3AB79464.A7A95A54@coplanar.net> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 12:33:25 -0500 From: Jeremy Jackson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.14-5.0 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Holger Lubitz CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: UDMA 100 / PIIX4 question In-Reply-To: <20010318165246Z131240-406+1417@vger.kernel.org> <3AB65C51.3DF150E5@bigfoot.com> <3AB65F14.26628BEF@coplanar.net> <20010319222113Z131588-406+1752@vger.kernel.org> <3AB7811D.97601E82@internet-factory.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Holger Lubitz wrote: > quintaq@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > > > > On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 12:17:38 -0800 > > Tim Moore wrote: > > > > > Apologies for the too brief answer. Sustained real world transfer rates > > > for the PIIX4 under ideal > > > setup conditions and a quiet bus are 14-18MB/s. > > I dare to disagree. These numbers are from an Asus P2L97-DS (Dual P2, > Intel 440LX chipset with PIIX4) with an IBM DTLA 307045: Yes this is why I originally replied to the post... but he's not using a PIIXx at all, but the IDE chip on an Intel 815 motherboard. I'm not sure if they use the same driver , but I don't think so. > > > /dev/hda5: > Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 1.21 seconds =105.79 MB/sec > Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 2.30 seconds = 27.83 MB/sec > > /dev/hda5 is the outermost linux partition, starting at cyl 256. > > (if you don't count hdparm measurements as real world transfer rates - > linear read as measured by bonnie is 26.3 MB/s). > > > There is a Win partition - so I do not think I am at the start of the drive. > > > > Then hdparm -tT /dev/hda > > > > /dev/hda: > > Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 1.04 seconds =123.08 MB/sec > > Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 4.08 seconds = 15.69 MB/sec > > Would your windows partition by any chance be at the beginning of the > disk? > hdparm speed measurements differ by filesystem (i have no idea why, this is false. They may differ by partition, since different parts (zones) of a modern disk have different recording densities and therefore transfer rates. IBM's spec sheet says rates vary from 15MB/sec to 31MB/sec... it he's seeing 15MB/sec, maybe he should try the other end of the disk. can you verify this? try hdparm -t /dev/hda1 instead of hda5 (if those are on opposite ends of the disk) include output of fdisk so we can see partition layout, and results of hdparm on different areas. > > since they don't go through it - maybe some interaction with the > buffering code). > > if you are testing a windows partition, you can expect to see > significantly lower values for hdparm: > > /dev/hda1: > Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 1.65 seconds = 77.58 MB/sec > Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 3.48 seconds = 18.39 MB/sec please show us your partition table. > > > Remarkably /dev/hda benches slightly better, even though the 64 MB read > are nearly the same as for hda1: > > /dev/hda: > Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 1.40 seconds = 91.43 MB/sec > Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 3.06 seconds = 20.92 MB/sec > > I also noticed that operations on a lot of files (like scanning for all > files in a filesystem as done by updatedb) got really slow with the 2.4 > vfat fs, with a very high percentage (in the 90s) of CPU time attributed > to "system". Has anybody else noticed this? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/