Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:17:41 +0100 (BST)
From: Ken Moffat <ken@kenmoffat.uklinux.net>
To: Timothy Miller <miller@techsource.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: IDE throughput in 2.6 - it's good!
In-Reply-To: <408E7E79.9080405@techsource.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0404272016000.1170@ppg_penguin>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0404232237140.19797@ppg_penguin>
 <408E7E79.9080405@techsource.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1113
Lines: 33

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Timothy Miller wrote:

>
>
> Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> >
> > So, despite the numbers shown by hdparm looking worse, when only one
> > user is doing anything the performance is actually improved.  I've no
> > idea which changes have achieved this, but thanks to whoever were
> > involved.
>
>
> I've done tests using dd to and from the raw block device under 2.4 and
> 2.6.  Memory size (kernel boot param mem=) doesn't seem to affect
> performance, so I assume that means that dd to and from the raw block
> device is unbuffered.  When I compare read and write speeds between 2.4
> and 2.6, 2.6 is definately slower.  The last 2.6 kernel I tried this
> with is 2.6.5.
>

 Well, my original test used cp, sync, rm, sync.  I've no statistics
from running 2.4 on this box to compare against.

Ken
-- 
 das eine Mal als Trag?die, das andere Mal als Farce

-
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/