Ivan Gyurdiev wrote:
It's nice to know my SATA II drive is so much superior :)
If the rpm, number of platters, and data encoding stay the same, so
will the performance, broadly speaking, 8MB or 16MB of cache will
only have an effect if you're doing reading that fits a certain
pattern, and as we've seen the physical disk couldn't even half fill
an ATA133 interface (let alone SATA, or SATA II) only cache reads can
do that.
Why are my cache reads so much slower than yours (by a factor of 2)?
A friend of mine has SATA I, with 1800 MB/s cached reads, which is
also much better.
/sbin/hdparm -Tt /dev/sda
/dev/sda:
Timing cached reads: 5428 MB in 2.00 seconds = 2713.83 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 174 MB in 3.00 seconds = 58.00 MB/sec
-----------------
/sbin/hdparm -Tt /dev/hda
/dev/hda:
Timing cached reads: 5532 MB in 2.00 seconds = 2765.83 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 90 MB in 3.01 seconds = 29.92 MB/sec
----
this has more to do with the cpu/memory speed, but nothing with the
interface
I have a AMD64 with DDR474Mhz Ram and getting the speeds listed above.
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list