From: Holger Lubitz <h.lubitz@internet-factory.de>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: UDMA 100 / PIIX4 question
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 15:06:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3AB8B557.F384D0F7@internet-factory.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20010318165246Z131240-406+1417@vger.kernel.org> <3AB65C51.3DF150E5@bigfoot.com> <3AB65F14.26628BEF@coplanar.net> <20010319222113Z131588-406+1752@vger.kernel.org> <3AB7811D.97601E82@internet-factory.de> <3AB79464.A7A95A54@coplanar.net>
Jeremy Jackson wrote:
> Yes this is why I originally replied to the post... but he's not using a PIIXx at
> all,
> but the IDE chip on an Intel 815 motherboard. I'm not sure if they use the same
> driver
> , but I don't think so.
I only know i810 systems from experience, but they use a 82801AA which
is still reported as PIIX4 in /proc/ide/piix (so probably is quite
similar, apart from supporting UDMA/66). I assumed that might be the
same for i815.
> > hdparm speed measurements differ by filesystem (i have no idea why,
>
> this is false. They may differ by partition, since different parts (zones) of a
i know. i found it hard to believe myself, but the numbers are
consistently lower even on the same partition. i used to have a spare
partition for things like this (hda6 below), unfortunately i cannot
repeat the tests right
now because it is currently in use.
but if it were a matter of different disk zones, only the buffered disk
reads should get slower, not the buffer-cache reads.
> include output of fdisk so we can see partition layout, and results of hdparm on
> different areas.
Disk /dev/hda: 255 heads, 63 sectors, 5606 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 bytes
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/hda1 * 1 255 2048256 6 FAT16
/dev/hda2 256 5606 42981907+ 5 Extended
/dev/hda5 256 511 2056288+ 83 Linux
/dev/hda6 512 767 2056288+ 83 Linux
/dev/hda7 768 1023 2056288+ 83 Linux
/dev/hda8 1024 1089 530113+ 82 Linux swap
/dev/hda9 1090 5606 36282771 83 Linux
/dev/hda:
Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 1.41 seconds = 90.78 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 3.04 seconds = 21.05 MB/sec
/dev/hda1:
Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 1.66 seconds = 77.11 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 3.51 seconds = 18.23 MB/sec
/dev/hda5:
Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 1.20 seconds =106.67 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 2.32 seconds = 27.59 MB/sec
/dev/hda6:
Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 1.20 seconds =106.67 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 2.37 seconds = 27.00 MB/sec
/dev/hda7:
Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 1.20 seconds =106.67 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 2.33 seconds = 27.47 MB/sec
/dev/hda8:
Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 1.21 seconds =105.79 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 2.31 seconds = 27.71 MB/sec
/dev/hda9:
Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 1.21 seconds =105.79 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 2.30 seconds = 27.83 MB/sec
the kernel is 2.4.2ac18 btw. i know its not the most recent, but that
shouldn't matter. this behaviour has been there for a long time. i am
not even sure if this was ever any different.
holger
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-03-21 14:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-03-18 16:53 UDMA 100 / PIIX4 question quintaq
2001-03-19 19:21 ` Tim Moore
2001-03-19 19:33 ` Jeremy Jackson
2001-03-19 20:17 ` Tim Moore
2001-03-19 22:22 ` quintaq
2001-03-20 16:11 ` Holger Lubitz
2001-03-20 17:33 ` Jeremy Jackson
2001-03-20 20:21 ` quintaq
2001-03-20 21:32 ` Mark Hahn
2001-03-21 9:56 ` quintaq
2001-03-21 16:26 ` quintaq
2001-03-21 16:38 ` Mike Dresser
2001-03-23 10:27 ` quintaq
2001-03-21 19:18 ` Tim Moore
2001-03-21 19:29 ` Andre Hedrick
2001-03-22 13:21 ` Holger Lubitz
2001-03-23 10:27 ` quintaq
2001-03-21 19:14 ` Tim Moore
2001-03-23 10:27 ` quintaq
2001-03-23 21:17 ` Tim Moore
2001-03-21 14:06 ` Holger Lubitz [this message]
2001-03-19 20:32 ` Mark Hahn
2001-03-19 21:51 ` Tim Moore
2001-03-19 19:55 ` Jeremy Jackson
2001-03-19 20:38 ` Tim Moore
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3AB8B557.F384D0F7@internet-factory.de \
--to=h.lubitz@internet-factory.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.