On Tuesday 20 March 2007 14:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi Dimitris, > > I have seen the same patterns - but I don't think it's reflecting normal > workload - so don't be alarmed. :-) > > 1) > You are comparing an Intel and a AMD processor accessing memory. > Intel's Core-processors (and Intel in general) have always performed > were well in this hdparm memory-tests. > I don't know why.. but that's the case (Maybe because of there > releatively large second level cache 4MB for Core2-duo) - > compared to AMD that typically still runs with 512KB / 1MB. > When it comes to real life usage the the difference is not that big. AMD > is very fast on context-switching. > Well, thanx for the feedback, if this can be confirmed by someone else too, then we can blame hdparm. But somehow I'm not convinced given that the Core2 reports 3 times faster times than the other. Its too much IMO.
> 2) > I believe that this is syncronous reads.. The raptor disk is very fast > in random reads as it has a low accesstimes. > The bigger and slower disk may most likely have higher data- density - > resulting in a high troughput anyway - as long as we are only reading > one file at a time.. > If you compare random reads/writes between the disk you get what you > payed for.. > You're the second one (or actually the first) to give me this reply and I totaly agree. This is not a problem after all. Dimitris PS: any hints/suggestions for benchmarking random r/w on the disks? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
