Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!ames!sun-barr!sh.wide!kogwy!math-keio!mad
From: mad@math.keio.ac.jp (MAEDA Atusi)
Subject: Re: bonnie i/o test results
In-Reply-To: eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg's message of Sun, 8 Nov 1992 15: 26:11 GMT
Message-ID: <MAD.92Nov9195616@amber.math.keio.ac.jp>
Lines: 92
Sender: news@math.keio.ac.jp
Nntp-Posting-Host: amber
Reply-To: mad@math.keio.ac.jp
Organization: Faculty of Sci. and Tech., Keio Univ., Yokohama, Japan.
References: <CGD.92Nov6232822@eden.CS.Berkeley.EDU>
<1992Nov8.152611.26176@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 10:56:19 GMT
Sorry for those who are bored with disk benchmark stuff. This is
(hopefully) my last article about on this topic.
In article <1992Nov8.152611.26176@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg> eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (Othman Ahmad) writes:
>Chris G. Demetriou (cgd@eden.CS.Berkeley.EDU) wrote:
>: PLEASE, before posting any more benchmarks:
>: (1) learn about disk architecture.
At least, no one now dare to say "take away buffer cache from Unix fs".
A progress (somehow).
In article <1992Nov8.152611.26176@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg> eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (Othman Ahmad) writes:
>No benchmark is perfect but at least we have figures. I'm fed up of people
>who only say but do not produce any figure. Those who say the most does not
>mean that they are right.
[..deleted..]
> Some e-mail me in saying that he can get 5Mbyte/second. It is faster
>than any workstation that I've tested. However I do not trust it so much
>until he posts the complete test details.
Ok, ok, here's figures. I would not claim ANY conclusions. JUST figures.
System: PC Direct 486dxe
CPU: 486DX/33MHz
Cache: 256K 25ns
RAM: 8MB 70ns
Controller: Noname IDE
DISK: Alps HD-A312C (200M IDE, 12ms)
OS: Linux 0.98pl3
Minix fs
Result of `iozone auto' from console (single user, no active background tasks).
IOZONE: Performance Test of Sequential File I/O -- V1.15 (5/1/92)
By Bill Norcott
Operating System: POSIX 1003.1-1988
IOZONE: auto-test mode
MB reclen bytes/sec written bytes/sec read
1 512 1777247 4032984
1 1024 2139951 4993219
1 2048 2231012 5518821
1 4096 2231012 5825422
1 8192 2231012 5825422
2 512 1613193 3813003
2 1024 1855886 4877097
2 2048 1906501 5377312
2 4096 1923992 5518821
2 8192 1941807 5518821
4 512 1421797 3554494
4 1024 1547713 4712701
4 2048 1625699 5053378
4 4096 1638400 5178153
4 8192 1632024 5309245
8 512 554435 59692
8 1024 559613 60271
8 2048 715751 113038
8 4096 1026757 192885
8 8192 562616 227025
16 512 509171 59741
16 1024 536184 61749
16 2048 563750 105570
16 4096 562239 183578
16 8192 568912 265294
Completed series of tests
Now you can see the reason why I said "1MB is meaningless if you want
to measure disk performance". In previous article, I (naively)
assumed this also holds on 386bsd. 265KB/s reading rate looks too
slow, but that's another story (I woudn't try to discuss here).
And `free' command just after the test prints:
total used cache free shared
memory: 7376 908 6388 80 304
swap0: 8268 0 8268 0
It means 6388 1k-pages are allocated for buffer cache.
;;; Benchmarking without analysis
;;; is as useless as analysis
;;; without benchmarking.
;;;
;;; MAEDA Atusi (In Japan we write our family names first.)
;;; mad@math.keio.ac.jp