On 26 Jan 2002, Jim McDonald wrote:
> Which shows a couple of things: first, that the single-drive performance
> of 2.5.2-dj6 seems to be really low, and second that running both disks
> at the same time results in each disk itself transferring data faster
> than when they were running alone!
I'm not sure about the cause of the performance drop, but one thing
I did notice that maybe Andre can shed some insight on..
> Boot log from 2.4.17:
> hda: 53369568 sectors (27325 MB) w/2048KiB Cache, CHS=3322/255/63, UDMA(66)
> hdc: 80043264 sectors (40982 MB) w/2048KiB Cache, CHS=79408/16/63, UDMA(33)
> hde: 120069936 sectors (61476 MB) w/2048KiB Cache, CHS=119117/16/63, UDMA(100)
> hdg: 120069936 sectors (61476 MB) w/2048KiB Cache, CHS=119117/16/63, UDMA(100)
>
> Boot log from 2.5.2-dj6:
> hda: 53369568 sectors (27325 MB) w/2048KiB Cache, CHS=3322/255/63, UDMA(66)
> hdc: 80043264 sectors (40982 MB) w/2048KiB Cache, CHS=79408/16/63, UDMA(33)
> hde: 120069936 sectors (61476 MB) w/2048KiB Cache, CHS=119117/255/63, UDMA(100)
> hdg: 120069936 sectors (61476 MB) w/2048KiB Cache, CHS=119117/255/63, UDMA(100)
Note that the drives that are now reported as slower have slightly
different geometry. Andre ?
-- | Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk | SuSE Labs- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 31 2002 - 21:00:42 EST