Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 16:10:31 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi@corbulon.video-collage.com> Cc: msmith@mu.org Subject: Re: speed of a ciss-based pseudo-disk Message-ID: <4262DED7.80907@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <200504172209.j3HM9Wbu097640@corbulon.video-collage.com> References: <200504172209.j3HM9Wbu097640@corbulon.video-collage.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mikhail Teterin wrote: >>>Why is the reported speed only 135.168MB/s? All equipment is U320, >>>so I'd expect the nominal speed of 320MB/s... > > > >>Just because a disk can communicate at Ultra320 doesn't mean that it >>can sustain data at that rate. > > > Yes, and the kernel would have no way of knowing the sustainable speed > anyway. > > Which is all why I was inquiring about the _NOMINAL_ speed reported... > > -mi Are you asking that someone go implement a 'nominal' speed tester in the kernel that will accurately determine the speed of each attached storage device? Would you demand your money back if the number reported was wrong? Why does it matter? Your SCSI busses are running at Ultra320, and that is that. Just because gcc + mozilla isn't reliable in your configurations... oops, wrong argument. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4262DED7.80907>