SATA question
dragoran
dragoran at feuerpokemon.de
Wed Feb 1 13:45:18 UTC 2006
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.
More information about the fedora-test-list
mailing list