Post your hard drive performance results.

[phibit]

I am curious to compare hard disk and RAID array performance results, to see the differences between Hardware RAID, FakeRAID, Software Raid, the different types of RAID (0, 1, 5, 0+1, ...), and no RAID at all.

I invite you to post a brief summary of your system setup, and the results of running bonnie++.


sudo apt-get install bonnie++ && bonnie++

My Setup:

Hard Disks: 2x500GB Seagate Barracuda running in a Software (mdadm) RAID1.
RAM: 6GB DDR2
CPU: 1.89GHz Intel Core 2 Duo E6300
Filesystem: ext4
Ubuntu version: 10.04



Results:

Version 1.96 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP
phil-desktop 12G 429 95 65995 12 37384 7 2131 89 93821 7 262.3 9
Latency 43308us 7867ms 5064ms 31844us 610ms 290ms
Version 1.96 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
phil-desktop -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
16 8329 20 +++++ +++ 17328 31 12456 30 +++++ +++ 16061 29
Latency 4499us 918us 745us 614us 973us 5851us
1.96,1.96,phil-desktop,1,1273080348,12G,,429,95,65995,12,37384,7, 2131,89,93821,7,262.3,9,16,,,,,8329,20,+++++,+++,1 7328,31,12456,30,+++++,+++,16061,29,43308us,7867ms ,5064ms,31844us,610ms,290ms,4499us,918us,745us,614 us,973us,5851us


Cheers!

[Directive 4]

Results:

Version 1.03c ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
-Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP
directive4 6G 44179 80 49453 17 17477 6 38956 76 46240 8 158.5 1
------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
-Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
16 32493 87 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++
directive4,6G,44179,80,49453,17,17477,6,38956,76,4 6240,8,158.5,1,16,32493,87,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++ ++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++








My Setup:

Hard Disks:1x320gb .
RAM: 3gb
CPU: 1.83GHz Intel Core 2 Duo T55500
Filesystem: ext4
Ubuntu version: 9.10



umm, maybe good, maybe bad

[phibit]

Thanks for posting! The comparison of our results is as expected:

We have similar write speeds (though yours is overall a bit faster), I have around double block read speed from having a RAID1 with 2 disks to read from. But overall, I have more CPU overhead. Interesting!

[sydbat]

Completely off topic, but - When I first read the thread title I thought "gee, isn't this the kind of thing I keep finding in my spam folder??"

Please continue on topic...

[The Real Dave]

Here's my results. Care to tell me what it means please?


Version 1.96 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP
beta 1G 269 95 43321 11 16657 5 1210 88 45068 5 119.3 4
Latency 65673us 780ms 1430ms 74939us 121ms 1332ms
Version 1.96 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
beta -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
16 15984 35 +++++ +++ 28284 44 22668 50 +++++ +++ 24291 42
Latency 11107us 1053us 2141us 7238us 15082us 16085us
1.96,1.96,beta,1,1273183999,1G,,269,95,43321,11,16 657,5,1210,88,45068,5,119.3,4,16,,,,,15984,35,++++ +,+++,28284,44,22668,50,+++++,+++,24291,42,65673us ,780ms,1430ms,74939us,121ms,1332ms,11107us,1053us, 2141us,7238us,15082us,16085us


Also, a hdparm test


dave@beta:~$ sudo hdparm -Tt /dev/sda

/dev/sda:
Timing cached reads: 816 MB in 2.00 seconds = 407.90 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 138 MB in 3.02 seconds = 45.77 MB/sec


And for the craic, a temperature reading


dave@beta:~$ hddtemp /dev/sda
/dev/sda: Maxtor 2F040L0: 28°C


Setup:

* Hard Disks: 1x40GB Maxtor IDE Harddrive [8MB cache AFIK]
* RAM: 480Mb DDR
* CPU: 2.8Ghz PIV (533Mhz,512KB) OC'd @ 3.23Ghz
* Filesystem: ext4
* Ubuntu version: 10.04

[phibit]

@The Real Dave

The results from bonnie++ are a bit confusing, but some reference points are the Sequential Output Block and Sequential Input Block. You're getting ~ 45MB/s , which is typical of 7200 RPM magnetic drives.

My hdparm -tT results are:


/dev/md0:
Timing cached reads: 2588 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1293.95 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 296 MB in 3.00 seconds = 98.55 MB/sec


I think I have 32M cache on both my 500GB drives.

[nirvana21]

Here are my results:


Version 1.03c ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
-Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP
stu 8G 84612 96 170477 43 73433 36 76501 88 204814 39 424.9 1
------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
-Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
16 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++
stu,8G,84612,96,170477,43,73433,36,76501,88,204814 ,39,424.9,1,16,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++ ,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++

processor: AMD 955 @ 3.7GHz
motherboard: MSI 790FX-GD70
memory: 4GB DDR3 1333MHz
hard drives: 2x 640GB Western Digital Blacks (32MB cache) in a RAID0 (fake RAID) utilizing the AMD SB750 southbridge

[phibit]

Ouhhh there we go... Nice speeds! 204Mb/s block read is pretty awesome!

I wonder why RAID0 offers better read speeds than RAID1? Shouldn't RAID1 be able to read in a similar manner?

[nirvana21]

Ouhhh there we go... Nice speeds! 204Mb/s block read is pretty awesome!

I wonder why RAID0 offers better read speeds than RAID1? Shouldn't RAID1 be able to read in a similar manner?

RAID 1 and RAID 0 are very different. RAID 1 clones data between multiple discs. It is good for fault tolerance. Theorictically it should have the performance of a single disc, altough I have seen it slightly lower.

RAID 0 splits the data between multiple discs. It is fast, but if one disc fails, then you lose all your data. I use this computer for gaming and general usage. So if I lose data its OK because I backup everything on my server. I am running this test on it right now. I will post results shortly.

[nirvana21]

Version 1.03c ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
-Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP
server 4G 52479 94 54811 6 29039 5 41354 78 135477 18 307.7 0
------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
-Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
16 3962 7 +++++ +++ 1268 3 2844 17 +++++ +++ 1628 5
server,4G,52479,94,54811,6,29039,5,41354,78,135477 ,18,307.7,0,16,3962,7,+++++,+++,1268,3,2844,17,+++ ++,+++,1628,5



processor: Intel Celeron 430 1.8GHz
motherboard: Foxconn G31MXP-K
memory: DDR2 2GB 800Mhz
hard drives: 4x Western Digital RE2 750GB RAID 5
raid controller: Dell Perc i/5

[phibit]

That's an impressive setup! That means you effectively get 2.25 TB of storage, correct?

If you don't mind my asking, why are you using such an array? Are you running a server? And what made you choose RAID5 over RAID0+1?

[nirvana21]

That's an impressive setup! That means you effectively get 2.25 TB of storage, correct?

If you don't mind my asking, why are you using such an array? Are you running a server? And what made you choose RAID5 over RAID0+1?

Yes, its about that much storage. It was all pretty cheap for how much storage I have. I got the RAID controller off Ebay for just under $100 and each hard drive was only $70 from Newegg. I choose RAID 5 because you utilize more storage without sacrificing redundancy as compared to RAID10. This system is just a file server and toy for playing with Linux.

I just realized I made a mistake. I didn't look at the performance until now. I forgot the OS was on a separate disk. I will update the performance numbers after the test completes.

[Dark Aspect]

Setup
Asus 1001P, same one in my sig, I find this thread interesting but unfortunately my aging Desktop is dead (Again) for the time being. So all I can post is my netbook, still might be good for comparison.


Version 1.03e ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
-Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP
Asus-EEE-1001P 2G 10874 85 52615 35 18392 12 12760 90 48394 9 103.9 0
------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
-Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
16 13055 93 +++++ +++ 15189 87 12872 95 +++++ +++ 20590 99
,2G,10874,85,52615,35,18392,12,12760,90,48394,9,10 3.9,0,16,13055,93,+++++,+++,15189,87,12872,95,++++ +,+++,20590,99


Anyway, I have not a clue what that means. but I am sure its horrible since its a netbook.

[The Real Dave]

Version 1.03c ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
-Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP
serverII 480M 26166 99 43843 31 11577 9 23312 67 27938 6 160.0 1
------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
-Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
16 12566 96 +++++ +++ 20457 99 14688 100 +++++ +++ 17607 85
serverII,480M,26166,99,43843,31,11577,9,23312,67,2 7938,6,160.0,1,16,12566,96,+++++,+++,20457,99,1468 8,100,+++++,+++,17607,85


Results for my encoding server.

Setup

CPU: 2.6GHz Intel Celeron [128K]
RAM: 256Mb DDR
HDD: 20+80GB Seagate IDE [8Mb]

* Small [~50MB] /boot partition on the 20GB drive
* 1GB RAID0 swap [500MB per drive, md0]
* ~99GB RAID0 / [remaining space on drives]

Both drives are on the same cable. Shows how little things like that, and the drives being the same effect performance.

80GB Drive

/dev/sda:
Timing cached reads: 470 MB in 2.00 seconds = 234.84 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 60 MB in 3.02 seconds = 19.89 MB/sec


20GB Drive

/dev/sdb:
Timing cached reads: 478 MB in 2.00 seconds = 238.76 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 104 MB in 3.02 seconds = 34.42 MB/sec


1GB Swap, identical Soft Raid0

/dev/md0:
Timing cached reads: 462 MB in 2.00 seconds = 230.57 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 78 MB in 3.02 seconds = 25.81 MB/sec


~99GB / , unidentical Soft Raid0

/dev/md1:
Timing cached reads: 466 MB in 2.00 seconds = 232.49 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 80 MB in 3.03 seconds = 26.38 MB/sec


Turns out that I get roughly the average of the two drives by themselves, which ain't bad at all. Just posting for thought food :)

And of course, temps

/dev/sda: ST380012A: 33°C
/dev/sdb: ST320014A: 27°C

[phibit]

Setup
Asus 1001P, same one in my sig, I find this thread interesting but unfortunately my aging Desktop is dead (Again) for the time being. So all I can post is my netbook, still might be good for comparison.


Version 1.03e ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
-Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP
Asus-EEE-1001P 2G 10874 85 52615 35 18392 12 12760 90 48394 9 103.9 0
------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
-Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
16 13055 93 +++++ +++ 15189 87 12872 95 +++++ +++ 20590 99
,2G,10874,85,52615,35,18392,12,12760,90,48394,9,10 3.9,0,16,13055,93,+++++,+++,15189,87,12872,95,++++ +,+++,20590,99


Anyway, I have not a clue what that means. but I am sure its horrible since its a netbook.

Actually, it looks like your performance, at least for block read/write, is on par with some desktops we've seen!

[phibit]

@The Real Dave

Hmmm.. I'm actually surprised that your RAID0 isn't giving you more of a performance boost! Maybe since it's a softraid, the CPU might be a limiting factor? I've seen plain RAID0s with upwards of 90MB/s block read/write!

[phibit]

Just for the sake of it, I'll post some hdparm results for some of my other drives.

Again, my RAID1 (2 x Seagate 500GB w/ 32 MB cache)

/dev/md0:
Timing cached reads: 2514 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1256.63 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 220 MB in 3.02 seconds = 72.75 MB/sec

An old Maxtor 200GB drive with 16MB cache:

/dev/sdc:
Timing cached reads: 2280 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1139.85 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 166 MB in 3.01 seconds = 55.10 MB/sec

A newer Seagate 1TB drive with 32 MB cache:

/dev/sdd:
Timing cached reads: 2462 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1231.13 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 380 MB in 3.01 seconds = 126.33 MB/sec

Weird that my 1TB drive reads faster than my RAID1 array...

[nirvana21]

Weird that my 1TB drive reads faster than my RAID1 array...

It's not that weird. Hard drive manufacturers focus on increasing capacity and speed. Higher density drives are faster. So newer and larger hard drives are faster. Besides, RAID1 is theoretically only as fast as one individual drive.

[karthick87]

Here are my results,



Version 1.03c ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
-Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP
Learners-desktop 4G 49647 76 46733 9 26988 6 65761 86 65987 10 139.7 0
------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
-Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
16 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++
Learners-desktop,4G,49647,76,46733,9,26988,6,65761,86,65987 ,10,139.7,0,16,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++ ,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++


Hddtemp


karthick@Learners-desktop:~$ sudo hddtemp /dev/sda
/dev/sda: ST3160813AS: 40°C



Hdparm





karthick@Learners-desktop:~$ sudo hdparm -Tt /dev/sda


/dev/sda:
Timing cached reads: 3338 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1669.57 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 334 MB in 3.02 seconds = 110.78 MB/sec



Details:
Hardisk: 160 GB
Processor: Core 2 Duo

[Phrea]

Version 1.96 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP
pb2 8G 311 99 101134 18 46417 14 3763 82 122681 8 209.5 2
Latency 26130us 1442ms 1241ms 77106us 135ms 661ms
Version 1.96 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
pb2 -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
16 19760 27 +++++ +++ 23638 18 21742 27 +++++ +++ 24594 21
Latency 5372us 1219us 748us 1271us 260us 148us
1.96,1.96,pb2,1,1273295329,8G,,311,99,101134,18,46 417,14,3763,82,122681,8,209.5,2,16,,,,,19760,27,++ +++,+++,23638,18,21742,27,+++++,+++,24594,21,26130 us,1442ms,1241ms,77106us,135ms,661ms,5372us,1219us ,748us,1271us,260us,148us

WD 320GB hdd
AMD Phenom II 940
4GB mem

Not really sure how to interpret these results, but there you are.

[Jive Turkey]

My specs are comparable to the OP but I think my performance was significantly lower, maybe to do with lower free space or my bios settings or something.

Q9550 2.83 GHz
8 GB ram
500 GB Seagate Barricuda 32MB cache 2 partitions Ext4 encrypted home no raid
ICH10 southbridge

Version 1.96 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP
plug1 16G 27 99 53977 93 26510 53 2575 88 71036 61 97.6 9
Latency 442ms 299ms 1524ms 59933us 457ms 1917ms
Version 1.96 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
plug1 -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
16 1414 14 +++++ +++ 8401 31 2167 20 +++++ +++ 8354 28
Latency 113ms 4515us 4733us 1576us 1219us 3225us
1.96,1.96,plug1,1,1273285994,16G,,27,99,53977,93,2 6510,53,2575,88,71036,61,97.6,9,16,,,,,1414,14,+++ ++,+++,8401,31,2167,20,+++++,+++,8354,28,442ms,299 ms,1524ms,59933us,457ms,1917ms,113ms,4515us,4733us ,1576us,1219us,3225us
After messing about in the bios, changing some of the SATA/IDE settings and enabling AHCI I re ran the test and got this( same system as above but with "Native SATA mode" enabled and AHCI enabled in bios:
Version 1.96 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP
plug1 16G 30 94 43387 66 27484 45 2637 74 69661 49 90.0 5
Latency 1552ms 6691ms 4362ms 123ms 716ms 4346ms
Version 1.96 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
plug1 -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
16 1953 15 +++++ +++ 15050 43 2314 18 +++++ +++ 13791 38
Latency 546us 2658us 4367us 1525us 514us 2301us
1.96,1.96,plug1,1,1273353779,16G,,30,94,43387,66,2 7484,45,2637,74,69661,49,90.0,5,16,,,,,1953,15,+++ ++,+++,15050,43,2314,18,+++++,+++,13791,38,1552ms, 6691ms,4362ms,123ms,716ms,4346ms,546us,2658us,4367 us,1525us,514us,2301us

[Jive Turkey]

Completely off topic, but - When I first read the thread title I thought "gee, isn't this the kind of thing I keep finding in my spam folder??"

Oh thank goodness I thought I was the only one who got that stuff.

[The Real Dave]

@The Real Dave

Hmmm.. I'm actually surprised that your RAID0 isn't giving you more of a performance boost! Maybe since it's a softraid, the CPU might be a limiting factor? I've seen plain RAID0s with upwards of 90MB/s block read/write!

Possibly, but I've never seen the CPU usage spike under using the RAID :confused:

[nirvana21]

Possibly, but I've never seen the CPU usage spike under using the RAID :confused:

You would have to have a very underpowered processor or under very heavy load to have your processor effect your array performance.

[The Real Dave]

You would have to have a very underpowered processor or under very heavy load to have your processor effect your array performance.

Ah ok, cheers. Probably the fact that both drives are on the same channel, or that the drives are dissimilar so.

[rfry11]

Version 1.96 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP
ryan-desktop 7G 81 96 37067 14 18511 7 997 97 47953 4 156.3 4
Latency 106ms 2123ms 2144ms 33867us 147ms 1338ms
Version 1.96 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
ryan-desktop -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
16 14759 48 +++++ +++ 25042 59 19757 64 +++++ +++ 22463 55
Latency 954us 1163us 1136us 946us 921us 941us
1.96,1.96,ryan-desktop,1,1273316020,7G,,81,96,37067,14,18511,7,99 7,97,47953,4,156.3,4,16,,,,,14759,48,+++++,+++,250 42,59,19757,64,+++++,+++,22463,55,106ms,2123ms,214 4ms,33867us,147ms,1338ms,954us,1163us,1136us,946us ,921us,941us


Specs:
Pentium D 2.88GHZ
4GB RAM
80GB SATA HDD, 45GB NTFS Win7 partition, everything else ext4 Ubuntu 10.04 partition.
1TB SATA HDD, NTFS
No raid or anything like that.

[nirvana21]

or that the drives are dissimilar so.

That will do it. You can only get optimal performance from the same model drives.

[ubunterooster]

Version 1.96 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP
josiah-desktop 15G 286 99 62925 10 71557 12 4537 97 267251 21 4990 103
Latency 36445us 2549ms 1396ms 6960us 27602us 400ms
Version 1.96 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
josiah-desktop -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
16 19188 21 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++
Latency 715us 335us 532us 267us 34us 543us
1.96,1.96,josiah-desktop,1,1273337272,15G,,286,99,62925,10,71557,12 ,4537,97,267251,21,4990,103,16,,,,,19188,21,+++++, +++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,36445u s,2549ms,1396ms,6960us,27602us,400ms,715us,335us,5 32us,267us,34us,543us



128GB patriot torx, CPU clocked @ 800Mhz

[Phrea]

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=9259491&postcount=20

Can somebody interpret it for me? :)

[Dark Aspect]

Actually, it looks like your performance, at least for block read/write, is on par with some desktops we've seen!

Cool,

I actually find the Asus EEE's performance to be okay as whole. But I noticed a mild amount of lag in somethings so I figured the hard drive must be slow. Maybe I need to run some benchmarks on the GPU, RAM and CPU.

For example: Firefox, Open Office and vuze run slow where as Gnome, Gimp and even Open Arena run fine. I've yet to figure out why, I think firefox doesn't like Atom based CPUs.

[The Real Dave]

128GB patriot torx, CPU clocked @ 800Mhz

An SSD with an 800Mhz CPU? A netbook I presume?

[ubunterooster]

ROFLMAO; it's actually a underclocked 3.1 Ghz desktop with 8GB RAM, 4 TB of storage, uses 55 watts and does a complete boot in under 20sec (5 sec from GRUB to desktop)

[The Real Dave]

ROFLMAO; it's actually a underclocked 3.1 Ghz desktop with 8GB RAM, 4 TB of storage, uses 55 watts and does a complete boot in under 20sec (5 sec from GRUB to desktop)

Wow, that's very underclocked. And you use that as a workstation, not a server?

[OrbJinzo]

Version 1.96 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP
kubuntu 6G 233 98 71282 16 31948 9 1278 91 61531 6 169.4 4
Latency 45500us 1223ms 1083ms 125ms 373ms 934ms
Version 1.96 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
kubuntu -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
16 15314 28 +++++ +++ 22812 31 24827 47 +++++ +++ 28841 38
Latency 913us 1077us 1755us 1117us 846us 901us
1.96,1.96,kubuntu,1,1273389720,6G,,233,98,71282,16 ,31948,9,1278,91,61531,6,169.4,4,16,,,,,15314,28,+ ++++,+++,22812,31,24827,47,+++++,+++,28841,38,4550 0us,1223ms,1083ms,125ms,373ms,934ms,913us,1077us,1 755us,1117us,846us

Kubuntu 10.04
Core2Quad Q6600
400gb Western Digital Caviar drive
3gb ram.
Nvidia 9500gt 1gb video card

[Jose Catre-Vandis]

Processor: Atom 330 Dual Core 1.6ghz
Ram : 2Gb (512 reserved for ION graphics)
HDD: 250Gb Seagate ST9250315AS
Xubuntu 10.04

Output:

Version 1.96 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP
lynx 3G 60 99 54904 48 24317 17 588 99 64089 12 153.7 7
Latency 184ms 622ms 723ms 34406us 244ms 851ms
Version 1.96 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
lynx -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
16 10852 62 +++++ +++ 13640 49 11197 62 +++++ +++ 15124 55
Latency 12364us 7308us 3978us 3736us 7449us 254us
1.96,1.96,lynx,1,1273398430,3G,,60,99,54904,48,243 17,17,588,99,64089,12,153.7,7,16,,,,,10852,62,++++ +,+++,13640,49,11197,62,+++++,+++,15124,55,184ms,6 22ms,723ms,34406us,244ms,851ms,12364us,7308us,3978 us,3736us,7449us,254us

[scouser73]

My setup:

HD: 82GB Hitachi Drive
RAM: 1GB
External HD: 1TB Maxtor x 1, 500GB Maxtor x 4
CPU: Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU 2.80GHz
Filesystem: EXT4
Ubuntu Version: Ubuntu 10.04



Version 1.96 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP
Desktop 2G 80 61 51211 25 20479 11 693 61 60761 12 175.8 12
Latency 278ms 1225ms 1595ms 32301us 138ms 847ms
Version 1.96 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
Desktop -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
16 11183 39 +++++ +++ 16105 38 13268 44 +++++ +++ 14685 36
Latency 12775us 18440us 24363us 16138us 9788us 20215us
1.96,1.96,Desktop,1,1273410859,2G,,80,61,51211,25, 20479,11,693,61,60761,12,175.8,12,16,,,,,11183,39, +++++,+++,16105,38,13268,44,+++++,+++,14685,36,278 ms,1225ms,1595ms,32301us,138ms,847ms,12775us,18440 us,24363us,16138us,9788us,20215us

[nirvana21]

Wow, that's very underclocked. And you use that as a workstation, not a server?

It could be that he has processor power saving modes enabled. For example, my processor (3.7GHz) drops its multiplier down to 4x when idling, which is 800MHz.

[phibit]

Wow, a lot of these results are somewhat surprising! What I'm most impressed by is the laptop drive performances. Some of you guys posted laptops that do 60MB/s sequential read, that's awesome!


It's not that weird. Hard drive manufacturers focus on increasing capacity and speed. Higher density drives are faster. So newer and larger hard drives are faster. Besides, RAID1 is theoretically only as fast as one individual drive.

I guess what you're saying really is true, as demonstrated by these results!

What about some SSD performances? I'm curious to see what all the hype is about... Some boast 220 MB/s sequential read!

[phibit]

128GB patriot torx, CPU clocked @ 800Mhz

Oh here we go, an SSD with ~ 260MB/s sequential read... 5 second boot from GRUB?!?! Amazing.

[ubunterooster]

Wow, that's very underclocked. And you use that as a workstation, not a server?

Main use is a file server but it is my main computer.