home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.unix.bsd:8577 comp.os.linux:15980
- Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.linux
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!sh.wide!kogwy!math-keio!mad
- From: mad@math.keio.ac.jp (MAEDA Atusi)
- Subject: Re: IDE faster than SCSI-2
- In-Reply-To: eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg's message of Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01: 25:10 GMT
- Message-ID: <MAD.92Nov7210246@amber.math.keio.ac.jp>
- Lines: 61
- Sender: news@math.keio.ac.jp
- Nntp-Posting-Host: amber
- Reply-To: mad@math.keio.ac.jp
- Organization: Faculty of Sci. and Tech., Keio Univ., Yokohama, Japan.
- References: <MAD.92Nov5204000@lettuce.math.keio.ac.jp>
- <1992Nov6.012510.12371@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg>
- Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 12:02:50 GMT
-
- In article <1992Nov6.012510.12371@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg> eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (Othman Ahmad) writes:
-
- >MAEDA Atusi (mad@math.keio.ac.jp) wrote:
- >: The file size of one megabyte is too short to get meaningful result.
- >: You are just measuring the speed of copying to/from buffer cache.
- >
- >You may be right there but remember that Julian's machine runs at 50Mhz,
- >whereas mine at 33Mhz.
- [deleted]
- > If you want a figure excluding the disk/buffer cache, take the read
- >figure.
- > If it were really all from buffer cache, then the write figure should
- >be much higher, equivalent to memory bandwidth, i.e. 25Mbyte/second.
- > Assuming 4 cycles of 50Mhz, 32 bit per cycle.
-
- Maybe yes, maybe no. The result includes buffer cache searching
- overhead (which increases with more buffer cache pages).
- 25Mbyte/sec is unrealistic, even when no real I/O is performed.
- System call of 1MB/512 = 2048 times can not be negligible.
-
- > buffer cache from 386bsd cannot be as large as 1 Mbyte.
-
- I'm surprised with this. I'm using Linux, which dynamically changes
- buffer cache size according to system usage. I oftenly observe the
- size of buffer cache grows over 4MB on my system (8MB RAM) with heavy
- I/O load.
-
- FYI, on my systems (486DX/33, 256K cache, 8MB RAM, 200MB IDE, running
- Linux 0.97pl6), IOZONE reports more than 5MB/sec given numbers smaller
- than 4MB. I wouldn't say my disk is 10 times faster than your SCSI-2 :-).
- If I switch my disk to SCSI-2 and run the same test, the result wouldn't
- be improved at all.
-
- >At least we are testing the efficiency of the use of buffer cache.
- >The latest version of iozone actually flushes the cache but I do not like this,
- >because that is not how we use unix file system. It does not measure realistic
- >situation.
-
- If the buffer cache never exceeds 1 MB in 386bsd, just one linkage or
- text formatting (with larege fonts) can easily flush the entire
- contents of buffer cache. And it's the usual way how we use unix file
- systems. Anyway, if you are testing the I/O speed in such a way, you
- can never tell about the difference between IDE and SCSI2, because
- disk speed is totally irrelevant.
-
- >:
- >: You should give numbers at least twice as large as your RAM size.
- >:
- >Actually I did that, but the figures are not informative. Not relevant to our
- >usual use. It confused more than it explains.
- > I advise people to ignore these "unrealistically high load".
-
- IOZONE *is* intended to be given larege numbers. Any other usage is
- out of consideration of the author and thus (I think) results are not
- very informative then.
-
- ;;; Keio University
- ;;; Faculty of Science and Technology
- ;;; Department of Math
- ;;; MAEDA Atusi (In Japan we write our family names first.)
- ;;; mad@math.keio.ac.jp
-