Nikolas Britton wrote:
This and all the other benchmarks you've run are useless. Run a real
benchmark like iozone. It's in ports under benchmarks/iozone.
http://www.iozone.org/
Please can you be careful when you attribute your comments. You've sent
this email "to" me, and left only my name in the attributions as if I
were someone suggesting either dd or diskinfo as accurate benchmarks,
when in fact my contribution was to suggest unixbench and sandra-lite.
Maybe you hate those too, in which case you can quote what I said
in-context and rubbish that at your pleasure.
The OP sent poor-throughput dd stats, and I explained why they were
poor. The OP then complained that diskinfo -t stats weren't up to
snuff, so I contributed mine because they were comparable and I couldn't
see why he(?) didn't like his(?).
I would contend that the statement "all the other benchmarks you've run
are useless" is grandiose over-generalisation. Both dd (with a
sensible blocksize) and diskinfo -t will give you useful information.
One might be an idiot to trust the data to several decimal places, but
if the result from both was, say, a transfer rate of 5Mb/s when you
expected 50Mb/s, you could conclude that something was up. Of course
neither mimics real-world behaviour; but both likely provide reasonable
maxima. You may find that "useless", but with no explanation for your
reasoning, your statement isn't terribly helpful.
--Alex
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
