![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05 2005, Ondrej Zary wrote:> >>André Tomt wrote:
>>
>>>Al Boldi wrote:>>>>>>>>>>Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: {>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 7/4/05, Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>Hdparm -tT gives 38mb/s in 2.4.31
>>>>>>>Cat /dev/hda > /dev/null gives 2% user 33% sys 65% idle
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hdparm -tT gives 28mb/s in 2.6.12
>>>>>>>Cat /dev/hda > /dev/null gives 2% user 25% sys 0% idle 73% IOWAIT>>>>>>>>>The "hdparm doesn't get as high scores as in 2.4" is a old discussed to
>>>death "problem" on LKML. So far nobody has been able to show it affects
>>>anything but that pretty useless quasi-benchmark.
>>>
>>
>>No, it's not a problem with hdparm. hdparm only shows that there is
>>_really_ a problem:
>>
>>2.6.12
>>root@pentium:/home/rainbow# time dd if=/dev/hda of=/dev/null bs=512
>>count=1048576
>>1048576+0 records in
>>1048576+0 records out
>>
>>real 0m32.339s
>>user 0m1.500s
>>sys 0m14.560s
>>
>>2.4.26
>>root@pentium:/home/rainbow# time dd if=/dev/hda of=/dev/null bs=512
>>count=1048576
>>1048576+0 records in
>>1048576+0 records out
>>
>>real 0m23.858s
>>user 0m1.750s
>>sys 0m15.180s> > > Perhaps some read-ahead bug. What happens if you use bs=128k for
> instance?>
Nothing - it's still the same.
root@pentium:/home/rainbow# time dd if=/dev/hda of=/dev/null bs=128k
count=4096
4096+0 records in
4096+0 records out
real 0m32.832s
user 0m0.040s
sys 0m15.670s
--
Ondrej Zary
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-07-05 12:31 [W:0.468 / U:2.420 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||