Hard drive performance

tbeehler · 10-15-2004, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dalek
Holy crap. I think that is the fastest yet. As Jim Carrey says, "smokin".

You keep a fire extingusher handy for that thing??? What do you do with all that speed?? Network?? server?? Got to be something. Bet it ain't cheap either.

Later

Don't know what my company paid for it, but it's a rack mount Dell 2550 Dual PIII 1000 with 2 gigs of ram and the above mentioned 15k RPM SCSI drives in a RAID 0 config. That was on my /boot partition. When I run it on my / partition, it drops down to around 50 meg per sec. I created 3 software raid partitions /, /boot, and swap. Just an FYI. Currently it does nothing. It sits silent because Dell is fan happy and it's loud as hell. I put it in a RAID 0 config just to play with it and see what it could do. Probably going to get rid of it soon, or use it for computing pi or something stupid like that.

But I must say that I agree with your statement. It is the fastest I've ever seen anyone post. I was surprised myself when I saw the results. I ran it several times to make sure. Anyone else have a higher hdparm score? I'd be interested to see if anyone has some of them really nice ultra SCSI 320 drives in a RAID config.

Travis

tbeehler · 10-15-2004, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FuzzBall
Wow... everyone elses drives blow my drives away... though they are fairly old drives:

My primary drive(Boot + main FS)
Quantum Fireballct15 20

Code:

/dev/hda: Timing buffered disk reads: 58 MB in 3.03 seconds = 19.11 MB/sec

My Secondary Drive(SWAP + extra space)
Fujitsu MPE3173AE

Code:

/dev/hdd: Timing buffered disk reads: 56 MB in 3.06 seconds = 18.30 MB/sec

Cd writer
LG 40x

Code:

/dev/hdc: Timing buffered disk reads: 8 MB in 3.33 seconds = 2.40 MB/sec

Are these decent speeds? they seem okay in my opinion...

For older drives, that's a pretty respectable score. I would imagine things may get slow from time to time, but for the most part, you should be chugging along nicely.

Travis

bdp · 11-16-2004, 01:08 AM

/dev/md0:
Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 0.16 seconds =800.00 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 0.59 seconds =108.47 MB/sec

7 drives:
4 @ WDC WD1200JB-00EVA0 on 2 Promise ATA 133 controllers
1 @ WDC WD1200JB-00EVA0 on intel ICH5 PATA
2 @ WDC WD1200JD-00H on 865 built-in ICH5 SATA
set up as software raid-5 linux 2.4.25 with 2.4.25-libata2

Crashed_Again · 11-16-2004, 02:31 PM

Code:

root@home vince # hdparm -tT /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
 Timing cached reads:   1728 MB in  2.00 seconds = 863.27 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads:  164 MB in  3.01 seconds =  54.49 MB/sec
root@home vince # hdparm -tT /dev/hdb

/dev/hdb:
 Timing cached reads:   1784 MB in  2.00 seconds = 891.69 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads:  120 MB in  3.02 seconds =  39.74 MB/sec

/dev/hdb is NTFS cuase I needed to play Call of Duty so I installed Windows on it. I wonder if the speed difference is caused by ReiserFS vs. NTFS?

pld · 11-18-2004, 08:58 AM

[root@mother root]# hdparm -t /dev/hde

/dev/hde:
Timing buffered disk reads: 166 MB in 3.02 seconds = 54.92 MB/sec
[root@mother root]# hdparm -t /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 148 MB in 3.01 seconds = 49.24 MB/sec

hde is a 10k rpm WD Raptor sata. I guess i expected a little better performance out of a 10k drive... does this sound reasonable?

hda is a 250gig WD Caviar. I was considering getting a second Raptor and running raid0...

Artimus · 11-18-2004, 05:09 PM

Quantum Bigfoot TS19.2A:
42MB in 3.08 seconds = 13.65 MB/s

Seagate ST3160023A:
8MB in 3.39 seconds = 2.36MB/s

This is on a UDMA33 system. It doesn't support LBA48, so I get terrible performance with the Seagate (160GB drive).

JordanH · 11-20-2004, 03:30 PM

Yet another.

WD Caviar 200GB w/ 8MB cache. ~45.25-45.75MB/s

One concern though, I recently posted the results from my WD Caviar 160GB as well; those results have significantly dropped from 43.33MB/s --> ~23-24MB/s which is WAY too slow. I have made a variety of software changes including an OS upgrade and have added the WD 200GB drive to the IDE #2.... but... that shouldn't affect drive performance... hmmm.....

predator.hawk · 11-20-2004, 03:47 PM

Timing buffer-cache reads: 2224 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1112.00 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 158 MB in 3.02 seconds = 52.32 MB/sec

~predatorfreak

edit: almost forgot, thats a Seagate Barracuda 7,200 RPM 8MB Cache 120GB SATA on a VIA K8T800 SATA controller.

ssandlin · 03-04-2005, 01:17 PM

I'm having a bit of a problem right now with a 2.6.10 kernel, but here are my speeds for both kernels:

2.4.29 (base kernel installed w/ Slack)

cached - 504MB in 2sec = 252.00 MB/sec
buffered - 72MB in 3.01sec = 23.92 MB/sec

2.6.10 (self config from kernel.org)

cached - 56MB in 2.02sec = 27.66 MB/sec
buffered - 30MB in 3.15sec = 9.54 MB/sec

I'm trying to nail down the difference between the two, but no luck yet (any suggestions?)

WD Caviar 20gig IDE UDMA 66

shaun

PMorph · 03-04-2005, 03:36 PM

Soltek SL75-FRN2-L * AthlonXP 2500+ * Maxtor DiamondMax 120GB/UDMA133
Debian sarge * hdparm v5.9 * kernel 2.6.8 * JFS

Buffered reads: 56 MB/s

everal · 06-30-2005, 01:01 PM

Code:

 
/dev/hda:
 Timing buffer-cache reads:   716 MB in  2.00 seconds = 358.00 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads:   56 MB in  3.03 seconds =  18.48 MB/sec

And the hd's info:

Code:

 
/dev/hda:
 Model=SAMSUNG SP1203N, FwRev=TL100-30
 Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec Fixed DTR>10Mbs }
 RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=34902, SectSize=554, ECCbytes=4
 BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=2048kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=16
 CurCHS=4047/16/255, CurSects=16511760, LBA=yes, LBAsects=234493056
 IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:240,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: (null):
 * signifies the current active mode

bad, isn't it?

tbeehler · 06-30-2005, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by everal

Code:

/dev/hda: Timing buffer-cache reads: 716 MB in 2.00 seconds = 358.00 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 56 MB in 3.03 seconds = 18.48 MB/sec

And the hd's info:

Code:

/dev/hda: Model=SAMSUNG SP1203N, FwRev=TL100-30 Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec Fixed DTR>10Mbs } RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=34902, SectSize=554, ECCbytes=4 BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=2048kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=16 CurCHS=4047/16/255, CurSects=16511760, LBA=yes, LBAsects=234493056 IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:240,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: (null): * signifies the current active mode

bad, isn't it?

Not necessarily. It might be that the drive is just not capable of going any faster then that.

Travis

jollyjoice · 07-16-2005, 10:13 AM

/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 16 MB in 3.33 seconds = 4.80 MB/sec

/dev/hda:
ATA device, with non-removable media
Model Number: Maxtor 6Y160P0

/dev/hdb:
Timing buffered disk reads: 20 MB in 3.03 seconds = 6.61 MB/sec

/dev/hdb:
ATA device, with non-removable media
powers-up in standby; SET FEATURES subcmd spins-up.
Model Number: IBM-DTLA-307030

Can I get these bloody things faster? I did the " hdparm -c 1 -d 1 -k 1 /dev/hda" but it refuses to use DMA, " HDIO_SET_DMA failed: Operation not permitted"

awtoc123 · 07-16-2005, 10:36 AM

Hi this is from my Compaq M2000 Notebook - 40GB - 5400 RPM

[root@localhost /]# hdparm -Tt /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
Timing cached reads: 1696 MB in 2.00 seconds = 846.86 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 94 MB in 3.03 seconds = 31.07 MB/sec
[root@localhost /]#

dalek · 07-16-2005, 01:22 PM

jollyjoice,

It sounds like you don't have the correct chipset enabled on your kernel. You may want to check that to be sure. I think this is the path through menuconfig:

Device drivers >>>> then either ATA/ATAPI/MFM/RLL support or SCSI device support, whichever applies. Find the one your mobo uses and enable it. I usually build everything into my kernel. The only modules I have is my sensors and nvidia.

I had a old mobo that had no markings on the chipset and I couldn't find out what it had. That is about what it got and it was a old 400MHz rig. You should get a lot better than that.

Hope that helps.

Oh, if you have some other chipset enabled in your kernel by default, you need to remove it. It makes your kernel smaller but it could also cause a conflict in a few cases, from what I have read anyway.