Wester digital 5200 rpm 30 gig drive Mandrake 9.0 1800+ Antholon
512 ram

results are

# hdparm -t /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 2.66 seconds = 24.06 MB/sec


is that good?

Amd Athlon 1800+
512 mb ram pc 133

seagate 20 gb 5400 rpm

/dev/hde:
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 2.18 seconds = 29.36 MB/sec

samsung 20 gb 5400 rpm

/dev/hdg:
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 2.16 seconds = 29.63 MB/sec

ShadowLux,

For the speed and buffer size, that is decent in Linux.

John.

cooool hopeing to go bigger and better when i build the next comp

I keep wishing too... I wish you luck with it. If you need an idea of something interesting for Intel, you might check out the i845PE chipset that will have boards out with it by the end of the year.

John.

hdparm -i /dev/hdahdparm -tT /dev/hdaThis result is fairly impressive for IDE IMHO


For those of you who wonder what my disk-settings are:
hdparm /dev/hda

justin@blackbox:~$ su
Password:
root@blackbox:/home/justin# hdparm -t /dev/hda1

/dev/hda1:
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 3.72 seconds = 17.20 MB/sec
root@blackbox:/home/justin#

Amd Duron 1.333 GHz
640 mb ram
40gb WD 7200 rpm hdd

does that seem a little slow?

Looks a bit slow compared to my HDD ... post the results of
hdparm -i /dev/hda and hdparm /dev/hda here ...

[root@ john]# hdparm -i /dev/hda

/dev/hda:

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

[root@ john]# hdparm -tT /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 0.32 seconds =400.00 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 1.88 seconds = 34.04 MB/sec

There is an economy Western Digital HD line called an EB series, this is a very tiny buffer and runs at 5400 RPM. the tiny buffer woulr hurt a bunch with regard to performanace with Linux, and a drive that rotates at 5400 instead of 7200 should take longer to seek. I suspect that this is what this person has. Yes, those results of 17 MB/sec are kinda slow-- my buffer-cache seek though, is NOT typical-- this is a 1.8 GHZ box that I am posting from and showing results from.

what the person with the slow benchmark specs might TRY is:

hdparm -d1 /dev/hda

and then retry the

hdparm -tT /dev/hda

and post the results.

John.

/sbin/hdaprm -tT /dev/hdc

/dev/hdc:
Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 0.50 seconds = 257.02 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 1.60 seconds = 40.11 MB/sec

/sbin/hdaprm -tT /dev/hda

/dev/hdc:
Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 0.51 seconds = 252.08 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 1.39 seconds = 46.09 MB/sec

/dev/hda:
Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 0.23 seconds = 556.22 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 1.81 seconds = 35.36 MB/sec

I guess mine are pretty normal

sorry about the newbie question but i su to root then at root

# hdparm -t /dev/hdc
bash: hdparm: command not found

i'm using redhat 8.0 can someone tell me what is going on?

/sbin/hdparm -tT /dev/hdc

(Most "dangerous" stuff is hidden in /sbin ie. out of your path).

thanks dnar it works

/dev/hdc:
Timing buffered disk reads: 64MB in 1.84 seconds = 34.86 MB/sec

IBM Deskstar 7200RPM 40GB

Yes, 30-35 MB per second is normal for workstations or desktop installs for the -t command. The -T command parm will read all over the place, partly determined by buffer size on the HD.

Above 35 MB per second, I would love to know what system specs produced that and whether the system involved has a custom compiled kernel-- so Derrick, could you tell us what kind of system and HDs you have, and tell us if you custom-compiled a kernel? Those results LOOK like SCSI with a small buffer or ATA\133s VERY interestingly configured or a VERY fast CPU and lots of RAM, or some combination of the above.

John.