Nikolas Britton wrote:
On 3/5/06, Beastie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nikolas Britton wrote:
On 3/3/06, Alex Zbyslaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nikolas Britton wrote:
Please can you be careful when you attribute your comments. You've sent
this
email "to" me, a
On 3/5/06, Beastie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nikolas Britton wrote:
> On 3/3/06, Alex Zbyslaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nikolas Britton wrote:
>
> Please can you be careful when you attribute your comments. You've sent
this
> email "to" me, and left only my name in the attributions as if I
Nikolas Britton wrote:
On 3/3/06, Alex Zbyslaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nikolas Britton wrote:
Please can you be careful when you attribute your comments. You've sent
this email "to" me, and left only my name in the attributions as if I
were someone suggesting either dd or diskinfo
On 3/3/06, Alex Zbyslaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nikolas Britton wrote:
>
> >>Please can you be careful when you attribute your comments. You've sent
> >>this email "to" me, and left only my name in the attributions as if I
> >>were someone suggesting either dd or diskinfo as accurate benchmar
Nikolas Britton wrote:
Please can you be careful when you attribute your comments. You've sent
this email "to" me, and left only my name in the attributions as if I
were someone suggesting either dd or diskinfo as accurate benchmarks,
when in fact my contribution was to suggest unixbench and sa
On 3/2/06, Alex Zbyslaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nikolas Britton wrote:
>
> >This and all the other benchmarks you've run are useless. Run a real
> >benchmark like iozone. It's in ports under benchmarks/iozone.
> >http://www.iozone.org/
> >
> >
> Please can you be careful when you attribute you
Nikolas Britton wrote:
This and all the other benchmarks you've run are useless. Run a real
benchmark like iozone. It's in ports under benchmarks/iozone.
http://www.iozone.org/
Please can you be careful when you attribute your comments. You've sent
this email "to" me, and left only my name
On 3/2/06, Alex Zbyslaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
[snipped]
>
> Why not happy? Transfer rates from 53 to 92Mb/s, give or take; what's
> wrong with that? On a plain sata disk I get:
>
> Seek times:
> Full stroke: 250 iter in 4.717248 sec = 18.869 msec
> Half stroke:
Beastie wrote:
second tools is diskinfo, but i'm not quite happy with the result.
#diskinfo -t /dev/amrd0s1d
/dev/amrd0s1d
512 # sectorsize
96609024# mediasize in bytes (931G)
1953118377 # mediasize in sectors
121575 # Cylinders acc
Your performance sucks because, to quote the manual, "Input data is
read and written in 512-byte blocks".
Try a sensible blocksize. 16k would mimic a standard file system
block, but even that is likely to underestimate. If you were, say,
copying the disk to another you could easily use 1
Your performance sucks because, to quote the manual, "Input data is
read and written in 512-byte blocks".
Try a sensible blocksize. 16k would mimic a standard file system
block, but even that is likely to underestimate. If you were, say,
copying the disk to another you could easily use 1
Beastie wrote:
I try to test with dd simple command
dd if=/dev/amrd0s1d of=/dev/null
^C31297+0 records in
31297+0 records out
16024064 bytes transferred in 7.970548 secs (2010409 bytes/sec)
the result is very slow performance (-+ 2 Mbytes/sec), with write
cache enable on drive. :(
Your perf
Beastie wrote:
Beastie wrote:
Robert Uzzi wrote:
That still dosen't connedt SATA to a non sata board though. That's my
situation I have 6 SATA drives but no SATA native board. Looking for a
cheap addin card to build this upon.
I'll buy Intel SRCS16 (500$) this week, will talk to u lat
Beastie wrote:
Robert Uzzi wrote:
That still dosen't connedt SATA to a non sata board though. That's my
situation I have 6 SATA drives but no SATA native board. Looking for a
cheap addin card to build this upon.
I'll buy Intel SRCS16 (500$) this week, will talk to u later about
it's co
14 matches
Mail list logo
