From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750907AbXATXrV (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Jan 2007 18:47:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750914AbXATXrV (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Jan 2007 18:47:21 -0500 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.188]:40458 "EHLO nf-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750842AbXATXrU (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Jan 2007 18:47:20 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=WhAIxyyU6kM/nx6HRYwfFCCWSva0A3ATw5yEO46yA77RbxJRrke0y1y62nQIFOhr41LS5OX/HGspoX0/eRdpGy1gPoSM8XpHdqzE7174uE4Ok08v51eD3k7MtAnsYEHg5zCB4SihXIuldKi+H0T78r/oy/KNONuDFUv0faWAfUY= Message-ID: <8355959a0701201547x137d7897t528bcee2538f1369@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 05:17:18 +0530 From: "Sunil Naidu" To: "Tim Schmielau" Subject: Re: Abysmal disk performance, how to debug? Cc: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ismail_D=F6nm?=" , "Willy Tarreau" , lkml In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200701201920.54620.ismail@pardus.org.tr> <20070120174503.GZ24090@1wt.eu> <200701201952.54714.ismail@pardus.org.tr> <8355959a0701201312r9a3aac4ufd151ca18ef7e64e@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 1/21/07, Tim Schmielau wrote: > Yes. You have a faster Disk that writes about 45 MB/s. But I am not sure I > understand what you want to know? I got these results with a customized 2.6.20-rc5. [sukhoi@Typhoon kernel]$ uname -a Linux Typhoon 2.6.20-rc5-Topol-M #1 SMP Sun Jan 21 04:35:28 IST 2007 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux > > [sukhoi@Typhoon ~]$ time dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/1GB bs=1M count=1024; time > > sync > > 1024+0 records in > > 1024+0 records out > > 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 19.5007 seconds, 55.1 MB/s > > > > real 0m20.439s > > user 0m0.004s > > sys 0m4.535s > > > > real 0m4.625s > > user 0m0.000s > > sys 0m0.125s [sukhoi@Typhoon kernel]$ time dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/1GB bs=1M count=1024; time 1024+0 records in 1024+0 records out 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 22.7749 seconds, 47.1 MB/s real 0m24.541s user 0m0.005s sys 0m3.899s real 0m0.000s user 0m0.000s sys 0m0.000s > > > > [sukhoi@Typhoon ~]$ time dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/1GB bs=1M count=1024 | sync > > 1024+0 records in > > 1024+0 records out > > 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 20.8707 seconds, 51.4 MB/s > > > > real 0m22.449s > > user 0m0.002s > > sys 0m4.922s [sukhoi@Typhoon kernel]$ time dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/1GB bs=1M count=1024 | sync 1024+0 records in 1024+0 records out 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 19.8685 seconds, 54.0 MB/s real 0m21.373s user 0m0.003s sys 0m3.859s > > Linux used here is not 2.6.20-rc5, but it's a FC6 2.6.19 binary. Shall > > post the results with 2.6.20-rc5. > > > > BTW, does the results vary with a customized kernel (configured w.r.t > > Processor & Hardware) than a generic kernel like FC6? > > I'd guess the kernel won't make much of a difference as the time is > mostly determined by RAM and disk speeds. There is some deviation in the results between these 2 kernels. Is this acceptable? > > Are there any other such test cases? > > Well, what do you want to find out? Anyways, I am in no way expert in the > field of benchmarking. I would be trying to benchmark the results on my machines in this fashion (overclocking experiment):- Disk Types Machine RAM SATA 1.5 GBPS - 160 GB P4-HT-3.0 GHz 2x1GB Corsair SATA 3.0 GBPS - 320 GB P4-HT-3.0 GHz 2x1GB Corsair SATA 1.5 GBPS - 160 GB P4-HT-3.0 GHz 2x1GB OCZ SATA 3.0 GBPS - 320 GB P4-HT-3.0 GHz 2x1GB OCZ SATA 1.5 GBPS - 160 GB P4-HT-3.0 GHz 2x1GB Supertalent SATA 3.0 GBPS - 320 GB P4-HT-3.0 GHz 2x1GB Supertalent SATA 1.5 GBPS - 160 GB P4-HT-3.0 GHz 2x1GB Hynix SATA 3.0 GBPS - 320 GB P4-HT-3.0 GHz 2x1GB Hynix Boards here would be used are Intel based 915, 965, and 975. Would be happy to know more test cases - for RAM/Disk/Processor Frequency And, I don't work for any magazine, writing a review ;-) > > Tim Thanks, ~Akula2