> -------Sequential Output-------- ---Sequential Input-- --Random--
> -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks---
> Machine MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU /sec %CPU
> scsi 2047 5132 86.1 3903 5.2 3914 6.9 5194 79.5 7898 8.2 100.6 2.3
> scsi 2047 5448 93.7 3977 5.2 3930 6.6 5189 80.0 7854 8.3 100.7 2.3
> ideraid1 2047 6022 99.7 20761 18.9 8459 11.8 6392 97.0 17793 14.9 249.6 4.2
> ide 2047 6036 99.5 28333 25.2 9786 13.3 6420 96.1 19831 14.7 145.8 1.5
Yikes. It would be interesting to physically remove EVERYTHING
from your SCSI bus except the host and the disk to determine
if having your scanner on the same bus causes an impact. Ensure
proper termination, good cables, yada yada yada.
You could try to determine which SCSI host (or more specifically,
SCSI host driver) currently has "most favored" status amongst the
Linux driver-writer geeks and re-run the benchmarks using said
whiz-bang SCSI host. Perhaps the Linux Adaptec driver is "less
than fully optimized?"
Alternatively, you could try booting (shudder) NT (I would hope
that Adaptec's drivers for NT are fully optimized) and
running similar benchmarks. To keep things a little closer to
oranges and oranges, you could boot FreeBSD 4.1.1 and run the
same version of bonnie.
Grasping at fibre bundles here, I know...
D
* On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 08:58:59PM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote:
> On Oct 18, 2:43pm, plug@arcticmail.com wrote:
>
> > You might give "bonnie" a whirl...
>
> Good idea... I've tried to write up a fairly complete report below.
> In order to do so, I've repeated some of the info of my mail of
> yesterday.
[snip]
(text/plain)