On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 02:39:05PM +0100, cj wrote: > In article <mpro.nm8dx001qojsl00l7.pit...@pittdj.co.uk>, > David Pitt <pit...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote: > > Hmm! My Iyonix did over three time better than that, and there was > > no "too slow" message. My test piece was http://www.dailymail.co.uk > > because that is a particularly heavy duty site. > > OK. A lot of random browsing around that site led to: > > (5743.130000) content/llcache.c llcache_finalise 3352: Backing store > average bandwidth 531777 bytes/second > > which is over 5 times faster. However, I thought we would be talking > drive speed, which shouldn't be affected by the download speed of any > particular site, or am I completely up the wrong alley?
That value is *purely* the total amount *written* to disc divided by how long the write operations took. The write time includes all directory creation/seek operations etc. rather than just the raw disc write performance. Anything above a megabit a second (125000 bytes/second) will not trigger the warning about low write speed. I set it there because below that value the overheads of disc caching exceed the benefit of simply fetching data from the network. > > -- > Chris Johnson > > -- Regards Vincent http://www.kyllikki.org/
