LinuxQuestions.org
Share your knowledge at the LQ Wiki.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - General
User Name
Password
Linux - General This Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 11-04-2002, 03:48 PM   #196
Tnadrev
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Distribution: RedHat 8.0
Posts: 15

Rep: Reputation: 0

thanks... ! though i had all that, was having some kernel issues bringing the driver module in... but it's all working now... off to play!
 
Old 11-04-2002, 04:04 PM   #197
jdii1215
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2002
Location: SW Coast of Florida, USA-- in fact, ground zero for Charley is where my town is
Distribution: Mandrake 10 Community, SuSE 9+
Posts: 167

Rep: Reputation: 30
Very good, happy whatever worked DID work.

John.
 
Old 12-13-2002, 08:34 PM   #198
Mackan
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2002
Location: Far north Sweden
Distribution: Mandrake 9
Posts: 36

Rep: Reputation: 15
My drive fluctuates between 16 and 21. By the way how big harddrive is max for Linux or whatever the limiter is?

[root@localhost Linux]# hdparm -t /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 3.96 seconds = 16.16 MB/sec
[root@localhost Linux]# hdparm -c 1 -d 1 -k 1 /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
setting 32-bit IO_support flag to 1
setting using_dma to 1 (on)
setting keep_settings to 1 (on)
IO_support = 1 (32-bit)
using_dma = 1 (on)
keepsettings = 1 (on)
[root@localhost Linux]# hdparm -t /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 3.66 seconds = 17.49 MB/sec
[root@localhost Linux]# hdparm -t /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 3.44 seconds = 18.60 MB/sec
[root@localhost Linux]# hdparm -t /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 3.98 seconds = 16.08 MB/sec
[root@localhost Linux]# hdparm -t /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 3.31 seconds = 19.34 MB/sec
[root@localhost Linux]# hdparm -t /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 3.37 seconds = 18.99 MB/sec
[root@localhost Linux]# hdparm -t /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 3.43 seconds = 18.66 MB/sec
[root@localhost Linux]# hdparm -t /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 3.53 seconds = 18.13 MB/sec
[root@localhost Linux]# hdparm -t /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 3.39 seconds = 18.88 MB/sec
[root@localhost Linux]# hdparm -t /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 3.42 seconds = 18.71 MB/sec
[root@localhost Linux]# hdparm -t /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 3.65 seconds = 17.53 MB/sec
[root@localhost Linux]# hdparm -t /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 3.40 seconds = 18.82 MB/sec
[root@localhost Linux]# hdparm -t /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 3.24 seconds = 19.75 MB/sec
[root@localhost Linux]# hdparm -ig /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
geometry = 2481/255/63, sectors = 39862368, start = 0

Model=SAMSUNG SV2044D, FwRev=MM101-49, SerialNo=0190J1FN956173
Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec Fixed DTR>10Mbs }
RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=34902, SectSize=554, ECCbytes=4
BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=472kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=16
CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=16514064, LBA=yes, LBAsects=39862368
IORDY=yes, tPIO={min:120,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2
UDMA modes: udma0 udma1 udma2 udma3 *udma4
AdvancedPM=no WriteCache=enabled
Drive conforms to: ATA/ATAPI-4 T13 1153D revision 17: 1 2 3 4

[root@localhost Linux]# hdparm -t /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 3.04 seconds = 21.05 MB/sec
[root@localhost Linux]#
 
Old 12-13-2002, 08:59 PM   #199
jdii1215
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2002
Location: SW Coast of Florida, USA-- in fact, ground zero for Charley is where my town is
Distribution: Mandrake 10 Community, SuSE 9+
Posts: 167

Rep: Reputation: 30
HD Performance

Unfortunately, it looks like the small buffer size you have on your HD (this is not changeable) and perhaps a slower RPM is making this particular drive bench lower than others. The HDs that bench very high tend to have bigger buffers and run 3X faster throughout raw to bus. For the hardware you have, your benchmarks are quite good. You are getting half what I get with similar testing.

I know most kernels in current use can handle 60 GB or more-- the 2.4.19-16mdk kernel variant I am running(It is actually a Win4Lin kernel I am running right now.) can handle an 80 GB drive PARTITION. Very old 2.2 series might be limited to 40 GB size. Sometimes Linux will override what a BIOS setting WOULD be if a box that only Linux is on has the HD set to none in the BIOS so Linux has to figure out for itself whet HD it has. Sometimes Linux will not find anything and the BIOS then has to be reset back to an auto setting to let Linux boot-- if you have interesting manual settings, like USER settings, make sure you write them down before trying to set to NONE especially if you have no intent to reload anything adn if you haveWindows on this drive do not play with settings in BIOS at all or you MIGHT have a drive that will only run when you boot Linux from floppy until you reset the settings EXACTLY to what they were.

This is not file system limit, this is PARTITION size limit and sometimes physical drive limit is close to that with older kernels as they defaulted.

John.
 
Old 12-13-2002, 09:40 PM   #200
dnar
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2002
Location: Perth, Australia
Distribution: FC5 ::: Coyote ::: SCO Unixware :::
Posts: 201

Rep: Reputation: 30
jdii1215 - Off topic, I also use Win4Lin and would like to discuss kernel issues with you. Please see this new thread:http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...threadid=38301
 
Old 12-14-2002, 12:20 AM   #201
oogie
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Dec 2002
Location: /home/oogie
Distribution: Gentoo & Redhat
Posts: 10

Rep: Reputation: 0
[root@cooloogie root]# hdparm -t /dev/md0

/dev/md0:
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 0.76 seconds = 84.23 MB/sec
 
Old 12-14-2002, 02:08 AM   #202
Linux_Moose
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jul 2002
Location: Australia
Distribution: ?? :-)
Posts: 13

Rep: Reputation: 0
My Spec
PIII 1 Ghz
40 Gb Quantum Fireball LP ATA 100

dev/hda:
Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 1.20 seconds =106.91 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 1.90 seconds = 33.75 MB/sec
[root@Linux2 root]# hdparm -t /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 1.90 seconds = 33.61 MB/sec
[root@Linux2 root]#
 
Old 12-14-2002, 07:23 AM   #203
jdii1215
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2002
Location: SW Coast of Florida, USA-- in fact, ground zero for Charley is where my town is
Distribution: Mandrake 10 Community, SuSE 9+
Posts: 167

Rep: Reputation: 30
Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 0.34 seconds =376.47 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 1.38 seconds = 46.38 MB/sec

1.8 GHz P4 box, 8 MB buffered ATA\100 drive:

/dev/hda:
geometry = 9729/255/63, sectors = 156301488, start = 0

Model=WDC WD800JB-00CRA1, FwRev=17.07W17, SerialNo=WD-WMA8E1874600
Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec SpinMotCtl Fixed DTR>5Mbs FmtGapReq }
RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=57600, SectSize=600, ECCbytes=40
BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=8192kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=16
CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=16514064, LBA=yes, LBAsects=156301488
IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:120,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2
UDMA modes: udma0 udma1 udma2 udma3 udma4 *udma5
AdvancedPM=no WriteCache=enabled
Drive conforms to: device does not report version: 1 2 3 4 5

UDMA3 is ATA\33, so his results wer decent for his drive. Mine is also in LBA mode, as well as having a bigger buffer. I am using Ext3FS for stability.
 
Old 12-14-2002, 07:44 AM   #204
dnar
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2002
Location: Perth, Australia
Distribution: FC5 ::: Coyote ::: SCO Unixware :::
Posts: 201

Rep: Reputation: 30
Those "JB" WD drives sure are sweet. 8MB buffer helps plenty.
 
Old 12-14-2002, 09:16 AM   #205
RefriedBean
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2002
Location: N 37 33.327 E 126 55.650
Distribution: Gentoo, Slackware, OpenZaurus
Posts: 186

Rep: Reputation: 30
I have a 40GB 7200PRM Western Digital (WDC WD400BB-32CLB0) drive, with AAM set to the quietest (AAM controls how much sound the drive makes), so the performance is a little lower than usual

Unfortunately mine has only 2MB cache

/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 1.88 seconds = 34.04 MB/sec

Overall I really like it

RefriedBean

Last edited by RefriedBean; 12-14-2002 at 09:19 AM.
 
Old 12-14-2002, 02:59 PM   #206
jdii1215
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2002
Location: SW Coast of Florida, USA-- in fact, ground zero for Charley is where my town is
Distribution: Mandrake 10 Community, SuSE 9+
Posts: 167

Rep: Reputation: 30
Yes, it is a slower thing that way:

/dev/hdb:
geometry = 4865/255/63, sectors = 78165360, start = 0

Model=WDC WD400BB-75CLB0, FwRev=05.04E05, SerialNo=WD-WMAAN1301391
Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec SpinMotCtl Fixed DTR>5Mbs FmtGapReq }
RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=57600, SectSize=600, ECCbytes=40
BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=2048kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=16
CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=16514064, LBA=yes, LBAsects=78165360
IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:120,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2
UDMA modes: udma0 udma1 udma2 udma3 udma4 *udma5
AdvancedPM=no WriteCache=enabled
Drive conforms to: device does not report version: 1 2 3 4 5

Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 0.36 seconds =355.56 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 1.88 seconds = 34.04 MB/sec

Might be time to get the 60 GB JB series back in this box in place of the 40 GB BB Series(right now the 60 GB has some older backups). I wonder what Linux will do with it in place of its old home. At least Mandrake has come along with the HD tweaking at install time-- averages a tib better for the BB and 1.3 Times better for the JB series with a scratch install of Mandrake 9.0 versus RedHat or earlier Mandrakes even after tuning.

John.

Last edited by jdii1215; 12-14-2002 at 03:06 PM.
 
Old 12-14-2002, 04:53 PM   #207
Mackan
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2002
Location: Far north Sweden
Distribution: Mandrake 9
Posts: 36

Rep: Reputation: 15
Re: HD Performance

Quote:
Originally posted by jdii1215

This is not file system limit, this is PARTITION size limit and sometimes physical drive limit is close to that with older kernels as they defaulted.

John. [/B]
Aha, so if I went for a 120 GB drive and shoved it in my tin I will "only" be able to use different partitions of maximum 60 GB each?!? I am considering doing that since my music media conversion project is using up nearly all space now. I want to cram all music from my vinyls, tapes, CDs and videotapes into the 'puter and randomly listen to it all, so far I have converted my 175 music CDs and I can tell you 20 GB is not much for this. I also have this vision that when I upgrade my computers in the future I will use the same HDD by simply moving the physical thing into the next machine and the system is running on the first power-on, so when I invest today I want something that works nice in the future as well. Does that sound reasonable "or am I only dreeeaamin'" (quote: Bangles, Eternal flame, anno dunno)

Greets Mackan
 
Old 12-14-2002, 08:18 PM   #208
jdii1215
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2002
Location: SW Coast of Florida, USA-- in fact, ground zero for Charley is where my town is
Distribution: Mandrake 10 Community, SuSE 9+
Posts: 167

Rep: Reputation: 30
Well, the price point for most GB\Dollar is sitting at between 60 GB and 80 GB right now(the biggest drives are not yet totally economical). Since trays are all of $20.00-$30.00 for IDE drives, in the long run your idea is not only doable, but you could also interchange non-bootable data drives once per boot. So, why not make your collection separate from your boot drives??? But on Hard Drives plural??? Maybe TWO???

If you want to lay out lots of money, you could stick a SCSI card in, get SCSI hot-swap trays and drives-- then you could have true hot-swap. I am on more of a budget than that, so I stick to the drives that are at the "sweet" spot and resell as used to others when need bigger ones after completely low-levelling them with the mfr util for that line of drive.

Thus, some data on a 40 GB went onto a 60 and then the 40 went into a box that needed a drive badly for folks with very limited budget for same after being zeroed\low levelled (as WD calls it). So, given the pricing, they got a 4 month old drive in perfect shape for about 2\3 the cost of a new bigger one for me and about 3\4 of the cost for a new one of same size and capability.

Figure a 4-5 year life for data on a HD minimum-- max is like 15 or more years if drive is used for archival use and is not accessed except for that use. CD-RW is 10-15 years. DVD ditto. These figures assume the media is treated right, and for a HD this means no crashes or surges through its controller. I have a drive on my mother's machine that was new in 1995-- WD, and it is clean like a baby out of the tub as far as defects go (none). Since I can get an 80 GB for about $80.00 US and 200 GB drives are in the $350.00 range still and the average seeks on those is the same because data is stored denser, it would depend on whether this is a paying thing that needs max throughput for huge amounts fo data or if it is a hobby exactly what I would do in your shoes. If a hobby, already answered, if not would say a 100 GB or a cuple of 80's to start, possibly SCSI if the money is there for that.

Remember a file system limit is in effect a theoretical thing-- so many nodes, so many files of average size. So, I would say for big files still limit your part sizes to no more than 80 GB unless you want to have a job of customizing a kernel and choosing a less stable but more capable in theory file system for your needs.

In your case, if your kernel and core components support ReiserFS or JFS you might look at using that for the parts that hold your music collection. Linux CAN mix file system types across a file system tree, so use that to your advantage unless you also have to get at them in Windows. I have seen current kernels handle 100 GB physical drives. I have heard of problems with bigger mechs on some systems.

John.

Last edited by jdii1215; 12-14-2002 at 08:20 PM.
 
Old 12-14-2002, 08:48 PM   #209
dnar
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2002
Location: Perth, Australia
Distribution: FC5 ::: Coyote ::: SCO Unixware :::
Posts: 201

Rep: Reputation: 30
Can I suggest RAID or at least manually mirrored drives for your GB's of music?

I lost 9 GB of MP3's recently when a one month old Maxtor bit the dust (it replaced an IBM DeathStar) and I can tell you this "non-missions critical" data like MP3's is a pain when you loose it... I had not bothered to back it up, as it was a) Non-critical and b) too big!!! Anyway, I am now mirroring my data drives....
 
Old 12-14-2002, 09:40 PM   #210
Mackan
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2002
Location: Far north Sweden
Distribution: Mandrake 9
Posts: 36

Rep: Reputation: 15
Alright, that was interesting. So the conclusion is:

Buy the size of the best pricing (GB/$) at the actual time if not in need of a certain size/speed
Upgrade as development and pricing changes
Backup data to new CD-RWs at least every ten years

I just realized that this is a bit far off topic, sorry jeremy. I'll start a new thread next time I think of something.

By the way when I backed up my encoded music I zipped the folders first to keep the filenames of the songs intact.

Greets, Mackan.

ps. Happy birthday, jdii1215. ds.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Test Hard Drive performance? voxel Linux - Hardware 7 09-07-2005 01:44 AM
Horrible Hard Drive Performance????? linux-rulz Linux - Hardware 13 06-26-2005 08:10 PM
hard drive performance true_atlantis Linux - General 3 10-26-2004 03:15 AM
Did not get the Hard drive performance Raid0! alpha97 Linux - Hardware 21 07-24-2004 03:52 AM
hard drive performance bynaar Slackware 2 12-18-2002 06:21 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:05 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration