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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox