LinuxQuestions.org
Support LQ: Use code LQ3 and save $3 on Domain Registration
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 01-01-2004, 11:41 PM   #391
natalinasmpf
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Distribution: Slackware 9.1
Posts: 309

Rep: Reputation: 30

Say, how do you specify the amount tested (ie. from 64 to 128?)
 
Old 01-02-2004, 12:20 AM   #392
dalek
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Mississippi USA
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 2,058
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 65
I think it depends on the program. Mandrake does one size and Gentoo does another. I didn't change it so I dunno.

Mine in Gentoo with 2.6 kernel.

Code:
bash-2.05b# hdparm -Tt /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
 Timing buffer-cache reads:   1408 MB in  2.00 seconds = 703.05 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads:  134 MB in  3.03 seconds =  44.17 MB/sec
bash-2.05b# hdparm -Tt /dev/hdb

/dev/hdb:
 Timing buffer-cache reads:   1320 MB in  2.00 seconds = 659.44 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads:  152 MB in  3.03 seconds =  50.12 MB/sec
bash-2.05b#
Nothing special. Top one is a Western Digital 80GB and the bottom is a Maxtor 30GB. I do wish I could afford one of those SCSI thingys though. They seem to rock.

Later

 
Old 01-02-2004, 09:44 PM   #393
Whitehat
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: The Cold North
Distribution: SuSE 9.1
Posts: 1,289

Rep: Reputation: 45
Here's Mine

I think from what everyone else Posted this is dang good!

-------------------------
root@pipewrench:~# hdparm -t /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 1.23 seconds = 52.03 MB/sec
root@pipewrench:~# 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@pipewrench:~# hdparm -t /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 1.18 seconds = 54.24 MB/sec
root@pipewrench:~#
------------------------------

My Specs are:
Compaq Deskpro EN 733MHz
384MB RAM
40GB Maxtor DiamondMax ATA133 (8MB Cache)
Slackware Linux 9.1 <-----that's your boy!


Peace,
Whitehat

Last edited by Whitehat; 01-02-2004 at 09:47 PM.
 
Old 02-20-2004, 12:29 AM   #394
zmaint
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Location: Kansas
Distribution: Mandrake 9.2
Posts: 58

Rep: Reputation: 15
Timing buffer-cache reads: 648 MB in 2.01 seconds = 322.39 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 138 MB in 3.03 seconds = 45.54 MB/s

Maxtor 80GB 7200RPM
 
Old 02-20-2004, 02:09 AM   #395
XORsist
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jan 2004
Location: BC Canada
Distribution: Ubuntu 9.04
Posts: 21

Rep: Reputation: 15
[root@localhost root]# hdparm -Tt /dev/sda

/dev/sda:
Timing buffer-cache reads: 1552 MB in 2.00 seconds = 776.00 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 214 MB in 3.01 seconds = 71.10 MB/sec
[root@localhost root]# hdparm -Tt /dev/sdb

/dev/sdb:
Timing buffer-cache reads: 1580 MB in 2.00 seconds = 790.00 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 158 MB in 3.00 seconds = 52.67 MB/sec
 
Old 02-20-2004, 02:24 AM   #396
dalek
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Mississippi USA
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 2,058
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 65
I thought SCSI was faster than that.

Me

Later

 
Old 02-20-2004, 03:47 AM   #397
XORsist
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jan 2004
Location: BC Canada
Distribution: Ubuntu 9.04
Posts: 21

Rep: Reputation: 15
I don't get why you would assume a disk is naturally faster just because it uses the SCSI interface. Take a single hypothetical disk drive, for example. Now change the "connector" from whatever, to SCSI, to SATA, to IDE, to FC, to whatever. The only thing that has changed is the way the disk interfaces with its controller. The actual disk itself (platters, actuators, spindles, etc, etc) has remained exactly the same. So why would any particular disk be faster just because it uses a SCSI interface?

Besides, I think the scores for a couple of older disks are just fine.

Last edited by XORsist; 02-20-2004 at 03:48 AM.
 
Old 02-20-2004, 04:53 AM   #398
dalek
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Mississippi USA
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 2,058
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 65
I guess because they are so darn expensive. I always thought they were much faster. I guess they are just more reliable, maybe.

Oh well, learn something every day.

Later

 
Old 02-20-2004, 08:13 AM   #399
paul144hart
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Location: mass
Distribution: 7.2
Posts: 5

Rep: Reputation: 0
SCSI drives handle error corrections internally so they are more reliable. There are also options for hot swap replacements that keep highly available servers running when a drive is replaced - e.g., in a RAID environment.
 
Old 02-20-2004, 08:50 AM   #400
zmaint
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Location: Kansas
Distribution: Mandrake 9.2
Posts: 58

Rep: Reputation: 15
Well, I am going to have to disagree that SCSI is more reliable. I have nearly 200 workstations at work and they are split about 50/50 between IDE and SCSI drives. The SCSI stations suffer drive failures about 3 times as often as the IDE stations. They are all about the same age (within 2-4 years old) and they are all several different brands. However Seagate drives seems to die more often than the rest. SCSI drives used to be faster because they supported higher spindle speeds and were a faster interface, but IDE drives are just as fast anymore. IMHO there really is no reason to buy a SCSI drive unless you are going to run 5 of them in a RAID config. RAID's are about the only places SCSI's shine.

I will agree that they are more expensive
 
Old 02-20-2004, 09:21 AM   #401
paul144hart
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Location: mass
Distribution: 7.2
Posts: 5

Rep: Reputation: 0
It seems odd you are experiencing 3x more failures. If the mechanical parts were the same, I would expect the SCSI controllers to extend the life further than an IDE drive. We have almost all SCSI in about the same amounts, and some PC workstations with IDE. They SCSI drives and swapped around alot so I expect more failures (specially when dropped), but also realize if we did that with the IDE drives they would probably go much faster - connector life time as we use SCSI LVD connections.

The other place SCSI is good for is swapping drives in an out quick when you are bringing clusters up and down in software builds, and don't want to blow away a working set(s).
 
Old 02-20-2004, 11:57 AM   #402
XORsist
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jan 2004
Location: BC Canada
Distribution: Ubuntu 9.04
Posts: 21

Rep: Reputation: 15
SCSI is more reliable than IDE, although the gap has lessend. Although there are numerous advantages to the SCSI interface, SCSI's biggest avantage is in the Enterprise, where the disks could be accessed by hundreds of users simultaneously, something a IDE disk would have nightmares about.
 
Old 02-20-2004, 05:42 PM   #403
zmaint
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Location: Kansas
Distribution: Mandrake 9.2
Posts: 58

Rep: Reputation: 15
I agree. RAID's and hot-swappability are the only thing its got going for it. For a single user's workstation tho, in my opinion, IDE is the best choice. It's just as fast, more cost-effective, and in my experience more reliable. And yes, drive mirroring with IDE is a nightmare.....
 
Old 02-20-2004, 06:14 PM   #404
mary
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 135

Rep: Reputation: 15
hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 80 MB in 3.02 seconds = 26.49 MB/sec

hdb:
Timing buffered disk reads: 154 MB in 3.01 seconds = 51.16 MB/sec

hda is 60 gigs, hdb is 120.
I'm not sure what brand/model hda is (probably some generic thing, came with my comp), but hdb is a Seagate.
 
Old 02-28-2004, 03:46 PM   #405
kapa
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: Finland
Distribution: OpenSUSE 10.0
Posts: 26

Rep: Reputation: 15
# hdparm -Tt /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
Timing buffer-cache reads: 1436 MB in 2.00 seconds = 718.00 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 164 MB in 3.01 seconds = 54.49 MB/sec
 
  


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 01:31 PM.

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