home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!hydra!klaava!klaava!liljeber
- From: liljeber@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Mika Pekka Liljeberg)
- Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
- Subject: Re: Benchmarking under Linux (was Re: New 486 Suggestions?
- Message-ID: <LILJEBER.92Sep7093942@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
- Date: 7 Sep 92 07:39:42 GMT
- References: <1992Aug31.210041.21832@novell.com>
- <1992Sep2.175417.11302@pool.info.sunyit.edu>
- <1992Sep4.100706.12473@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
- <1992Sep6.212556.14491@wuecl.wustl.edu>
- Sender: liljeber@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Mika Pekka Liljeberg)
- Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Helsinki, Finland
- Lines: 51
- In-Reply-To: ets1@cec2.wustl.edu's message of 6 Sep 92 21: 25:56 GMT
-
- In article <1992Sep6.212556.14491@wuecl.wustl.edu> ets1@cec2.wustl.edu (Eric Thomas Stuebe) wrote:
- > In article <1992Sep4.100706.12473@klaava.Helsinki.FI> torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds) writes:
- >
- >>But processor speed can be very important under linux: not just for the
- >>obvious user-level speedup, but due to better response to disk-drive
- >>interrupts and the like. Faster machines may simply read the disk at
- >>the full 1:1 interleave - with slower systems, it's possible that the HD
- >>driver doesn't keep up, and you get the dreaded 1-block/rotation
- >>syndrome, which really hurts when swapping. This problem is probably
- >>especially notable on 386SX machines: the 386 interrupt handling is
- >>inherently slow, but if the memory badwidth is further reduced by the
- >>16-bit bus, interrupt response is probably ever worse.
- >
- >> Linus
- >
- > What would you guess that the odds are that this is actually happening to
- > anybody? I'm running on the most basic Linux-capable system--16 Mhz 386sx,
- > with just 2M of RAM--so I expect that I'm getting hit by it if it's happening
- > to anyone. I plan on repartitioning my hard drive soon anyway, I could
- > reformat with a 2:1 or even 3:1 interleave at the same time...but I thought
- > that the days of 3:1 interleaves were gone forever when I moved into double-
- > digit Mhz ratings.
-
- I don't know about odds, but it's happening to me. I have a 25 MHz 386, at least
- until my mother board upgrade arrives, and two RLL drives. Using RLL drives is
- part of the problem, since 26 sectors/track makes for a lot tighter timing than
- 15 sectors/track. This wouldn't be a problem, if only my controller was buffered,
- but, sadly, it isn't. The controller is speced to perform at 1:1 interleave, but
- this is only possible, if the processor doesn't go off carousing, switching
- processes and the like. Sigh. The boon and price of a real OS.
-
- On a related note, I have patches for a track buffered hd driver, in case anyone
- needs them. The paches bring my data transfer rates up from 56k/s (1 block/rotation)
- to about 300k/s (5-6 blocks/rotation), which is a definite imrovement. I have
- been using them for a couple of months now, with no problems, so they should be
- bug-free. So far I've been unable to interest Linus in the patches (they're not
- as clean as he would like, and I haven't had sufficient motivation to clean them
- up. Besides, I expect the problem to go away with the mother board upgrade.).
- However, if you would like them, drop me a mail.
-
- > --
- > Eric Stuebe, CS/EE at Washington University *in St. Louis*
- > ets1@cec1.wustl.edu "I didn't do it! Nobody saw me do it--you can't
- > estuebe@nyx.cs.du.edu prove nothin'! ... What was the question again?"
-
- Mika
-
- --
- Mika Liljeberg Email: liljeber@kruuna.Helsinki.FI
- Helsinki University Mika.Liljeberg@Helsinki.FI
- Dept. of Computer Science
-