(A MUST READ!!!!!) The Ultimately Fastest Ubuntu Desktop/Server You Can Have!

I havent use Reiser for some time, but when I did, I found it quite fast.
Back to the present:
On my home PC, I have 4 drives, with dual boot.
So I have on my 200GBS WD 10GB NTFS (primary), swap, boot (ext3), / on XFS (extended), home on XFS (extended).
Two drives with NTFS, and a 500GBs Seagate Sata2 with XFS.

Since I got my brand new 500GBs SATA, I've been moving files (BIG and small) between disks. Using Konqueror, I could see speeds of about 20-30 MB per second.
I always assumed it was because of the [slow] older drives.
After running several hdparm tests on both drives and partitions I've found out that XFS as quite slower on those tests then NTFS or ext3.
My PATA drives range between 30 and 40 MB/s and the SATA can reach 68 MB/s (working on an external PCI controller as SATA 1).
But the speed of the partitions is quite different.
With some of my friends, I tested there speed and found mix results, expecially on the SWAP partition getting very mix results.

If everyone here could also post there results for the next command, we might get some more reliable results.
Here it is

sudo fdisk -l > ~/Desktop/fdisk.txt
## so we know the file system
sudo nice -n -20 hdparm -tTiT /dev/[h,s]d[a-z] > ~/Desktop/disks.txt
## Speed of the drives
sudo nice -n -20 hdparm -tT /dev/[h,s]d[a-z]? > ~/Desktop/part.txt
## Speed of the partitions

Please run test 2 and 3, 3 times or more and do an average, since the first two results tend to be very different.

Thanks so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BUGabundo

sudo fdisk -l > ~/Desktop/fdisk.txt
## so we know the file system

---

"Disk /dev/hda: 40.0 GB, 40020664320 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 4865 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/hda1 * 1 4772 38331058+ 83 Linux
/dev/hda2 4773 4865 747022+ 5 Extended
/dev/hda5 4773 4865 746991 82 Linux swap / Solaris

Disk /dev/hdb: 250.0 GB, 250059350016 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 30401 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/hdb1 1 5222 41945683+ 7 HPFS/NTFS
/dev/hdb2 5223 30401 202250317+ 7 HPFS/NTFS"

Since hdb is NTFS and I can't write to it (couldn't get ntfs-3g working), I'll post the results for hda.

Quote:

---

sudo nice -n -20 hdparm -tTiT /dev/[h,s]d[a-z] > ~/Desktop/disks.txt
## Speed of the drives

---

"/dev/hda:

Model=WDC WD400JB-00ENA0, FwRev=05.03E05, SerialNo=WD-WCAD19677204
Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec SpinMotCtl Fixed DTR>5Mbs FmtGapReq }
RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=57600, SectSize=600, ECCbytes=40
BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=8192kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=off
CurCHS=4047/16/255, CurSects=16511760, LBA=yes, LBAsects=78165360
IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:120,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2
UDMA modes: udma0 udma1 udma2 udma3 udma4 *udma5 udma3 udma4 *udma5
AdvancedPM=no WriteCache=enabled
Drive conforms to: Unspecified: ATA/ATAPI-1 ATA/ATAPI-2 ATA/ATAPI-3 ATA/ATAPI-4 ATA/ATAPI-5

* signifies the current active mode

Timing cached reads: 412 MB in 2.00 seconds = 205.56 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 102 MB in 3.21 seconds = 31.82 MB/sec"

Run 2:

" Timing cached reads: 406 MB in 2.01 seconds = 202.27 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 72 MB in 3.03 seconds = 23.78 MB/sec"

Run 3:

" Timing cached reads: 412 MB in 2.00 seconds = 205.63 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 120 MB in 3.05 seconds = 39.38 MB/sec"

Average, cached = 204.49 MB/sec
Average, buffered = 31.66 MB/sec

Quote:

---

sudo nice -n -20 hdparm -tT /dev/[h,s]d[a-z]? > ~/Desktop/part.txt
## Speed of the partitions

---

Run 1:

"/dev/hda:
Timing cached reads: 414 MB in 2.01 seconds = 206.13 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 44 MB in 3.13 seconds = 14.06 MB/sec"

Run 2:

" Timing cached reads: 416 MB in 2.01 seconds = 207.45 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 100 MB in 3.06 seconds = 32.64 MB/sec"

Run 3:

" Timing cached reads: 412 MB in 2.00 seconds = 205.56 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 20 MB in 3.13 seconds = 6.39 MB/sec"

and since I got some abysmally low numbers, one more run to be sure:

Run 4:

" Timing cached reads: 414 MB in 2.01 seconds = 206.13 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 3.02 seconds = 21.22 MB/sec"

Average, cached = 206.32 MB/sec
Average, buffered = 18.58 MB/sec

Now, this disc is a cheap, fairly old 5400 RPM drive running on secondary hardware. I'm commissioning the replacement for my primary hardware. I would expect the results to be quite different: two SATA WD Raptors in mdadm RAID 0...I believe there'd be a bit of a performance boost there.:)

I'll post the results from that machine when I have time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fraoch

Since hdb is NTFS and I can't write to it (couldn't get ntfs-3g working), I'll post the results for hda.

---

hdparm doesnt write on disks or partitions, it just do a reading test.
It would work even if the drive had no filesystem on it.
Please try again for the hdb.

about ntfs-3g: its quite easy to work with, although quite unstable when working with large files.
just try mounting it on the shell (without sudo):
ntfs-3g /dev/hdb1 /mnt/hdb1 -o uid=1000
ntfs-3g /dev/hdb2 /mnt/hdb2 -o uid=1000

if it works, just had the result of mtab to fstab

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BUGabundo

hdparm doesnt write on disks or partitions, it just do a reading test.
It would work even if the drive had no filesystem on it.
Please try again for the hdb.

---

Ah, OK.

Quote:

---

sudo nice -n -20 hdparm -tTiT /dev/[h,s]d[a-z] > ~/Desktop/disks.txt
## Speed of the drives

---

"/dev/hdb:

Model=SAMSUNG SP2514N, FwRev=VF100-33, SerialNo=S08BJ1GA102754
Config={ Fixed }
RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=34902, SectSize=554, ECCbytes=4
BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=8192kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=off
CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=16514064, LBA=yes, LBAsects=66055248
IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:240,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2
UDMA modes: udma0 udma1 udma2 udma3 udma4 *udma5 udma3 udma4 *udma5
AdvancedPM=no WriteCache=enabled
Drive conforms to: unknown: ATA/ATAPI-1 ATA/ATAPI-2 ATA/ATAPI-3 ATA/ATAPI-4 ATA/ATAPI-5 ATA/ATAPI-6 ATA/ATAPI-7

* signifies the current active mode

Timing cached reads: 414 MB in 2.01 seconds = 206.27 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 112 MB in 3.01 seconds = 37.17 MB/sec"

Run 2:

" Timing cached reads: 412 MB in 2.00 seconds = 205.64 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 34 MB in 3.08 seconds = 11.04 MB/sec"

Run 3:

" Timing cached reads: 412 MB in 2.01 seconds = 205.13 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 188 MB in 3.02 seconds = 62.26 MB/sec" (?)

and because I got some crazy-weird numbers there, run 4:

" Timing cached reads: 410 MB in 2.00 seconds = 204.94 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 136 MB in 3.00 seconds = 45.29 MB/sec"

Average, cached = 205.50 MB/sec
Average, buffered = 38.94 MB/sec

Quote:

---

sudo nice -n -20 hdparm -tT /dev/[h,s]d[a-z]? > ~/Desktop/part.txt
## Speed of the partitions

---

"/dev/hdb:
Timing cached reads: 420 MB in 2.00 seconds = 209.91 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 28 MB in 3.00 seconds = 9.32 MB/sec"

Run 2:

" Timing cached reads: 420 MB in 2.01 seconds = 209.21 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 184 MB in 3.01 seconds = 61.19 MB/sec"

Run 3:

" Timing cached reads: 414 MB in 2.00 seconds = 206.84 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 210 MB in 3.02 seconds = 69.56 MB/sec"

and because there's even more crazy numbers there,

Run 4:

" Timing cached reads: 412 MB in 2.01 seconds = 205.40 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 142 MB in 3.03 seconds = 46.92 MB/sec"

Average, cached = 207.84 MB/sec
Average, buffered = 46.75 MB/sec

This is a much newer, much faster 7200 RPM drive. I'm surprised the drive speed tests aren't that much faster. I suspect I'm limited by CPU and the SiS 962L southbridge.

Quote:

---

about ntfs-3g: its quite easy to work with, although quite unstable when working with large files.
just try mounting it on the shell (without sudo):
ntfs-3g /dev/hdb1 /mnt/hdb1 -o uid=1000
ntfs-3g /dev/hdb2 /mnt/hdb2 -o uid=1000

if it works, just had the result of mtab to fstab

---

I kept getting errors about the drive being shutdown uncleanly. That's quite possible, my old primary system failed under power. I can't be bothered taking it out, mounting it in my USB drive enclosure, correctly shutting it down using my Windows laptop, uninstalling it from the enclosure and reinstalling it back in the case. I'll reformat it to a Linux filesystem and recreate the data from a backup.

I will probably reformat it ext3. It contains my music collection as well as a backup partition. I don't need speed on it, I need reliability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fraoch

...
and because I got some crazy-weird numbers there, run 4:
...
This is a much newer, much faster 7200 RPM drive. I'm surprised the drive speed tests aren't that much faster. I suspect I'm limited by CPU and the SiS 962L southbridge.

---

I've seen pretty strange results when several runs are done, but you beat them all.
Something else is playing there. Are you sure that no other HEAVY application is running?
can you do the test on init 1?
just run: sudo telinit 1. after tests are done, you can resume normal session with telinit 5.

also you only posted results of a single partition. where is hdb2?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fraoch

I kept getting errors about the drive being shutdown uncleanly. That's quite possible, my old primary system failed under power. I can't be bothered taking it out, mounting it in my USB drive enclosure, correctly shutting it down using my Windows laptop, uninstalling it from the enclosure and reinstalling it back in the case. I'll reformat it to a Linux filesystem and recreate the data from a backup.

I will probably reformat it ext3. It contains my music collection as well as a backup partition. I don't need speed on it, I need reliability.

---

that is quite usual.
just boot windows and run a chkdsk /f c: , or any other disk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BUGabundo

I've seen pretty strange results when several runs are done, but you beat them all.
Something else is playing there. Are you sure that no other HEAVY application is running?

---

Not really, but this setup is very RAM-limited. 256 MB of DDR2100. It gets pretty slow. I'm commissioning its replacement as fast as I can, but it's not production-status at the moment. I need to move hdb and some optical drives into it, get them working and reconfigure a server application.

Quote:

---

can you do the test on init 1?
just run: sudo telinit 1. after tests are done, you can resume normal session with telinit 5.

also you only posted results of a single partition. where is hdb2?

---

That's a lot of testing because there's hda1, hda2, hda5, hdb1 and hdb2 to do. I'll see what I can do, but this is known slow hardware. I'd rather do testing on my new setup as time permits. Hope you're not offended but that's quite a bit of testing if there were 3 or 4 runs for each of the 5 partitions. :(

Quote:

---

that is quite usual.
just boot windows and run a chkdsk /f c: , or any other disk.

---

The only Windows machine I have left is my company laptop. I'd have to use my USB2 enclosure, remove the drive that's in that, install this one, etc. etc. Not really worth it since I plan on reformatting it ext3 anyway.

OK, I re-ran all tests on all partitions 5 times on init 1. I couldn't test hda2 because it kept giving me errors about being too small.

Also just realized that the drive tests should have been done on the drives hda and hdb and not on the partitions, but anyway. I suppose if you average the separate partition tests it will work out as an overall average for the drives.

Testing on init 1 smoothed out the huge variations test-to-test I was getting. The results test-to-test were very, very even, usually varying by +/- 1 MB/sec for cached tests and +/- 0.5 MB/sec for buffered tests.

hda1, drive tests:

Average, cached = 204.55 MB/sec
Average, buffered = 46.39 MB/sec

hda5, drive tests:

Average, cached = 205.54 MB/sec
Average, buffered = 26.75 MB/sec

hdb1, drive tests:

Average, cached = 205.70 MB/sec
Average, buffered = 63.02 MB/sec

hdb2, drive tests:

Average, cached = 205.86 MB/sec
Average, buffered = 62.47 MB/sec

hda1, partition tests:

Average, cached = 204.67 MB/sec
Average, buffered = 46.39 MB/sec

hda5, partition tests:

Average, cached = 205.89 MB/sec
Average, buffered = 26.76 MB/sec

hdb1, partition tests:

Average, cached = 205.82 MB/sec
Average, buffered = 62.83 MB/sec

hdb2, partition tests:

Average, cached = 205.70 MB/sec
Average, buffered = 62.78 MB/sec

As expected, my hdb is much faster than my hda, but I didn't think it would be that much faster.

Tried XFS on my laptop, which is where I would like the most improvement in OS speed, but nothing to write home about happened. I will try it on my home desktop sometime this week.:guitar:

can you suggest a good partitioning heres what iam using

intel 1.6ghz, 720 ram
primary: 30gb ide
slave:20gb ide

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fraoch

... I couldn't test hda2 because it kept giving me errors about being too small.

---

thats because hda2 is the begining of the extended partitions. it has no size.

about the test, they are meant to test both drives and partitions. thats why I provided to set of tests.And the reason of this topic: FS speed.