Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:49:46 +0400 From: Dmitry Mityugov <dmitry.mityugov@gmail.com> To: "scuba@centroin.com.br" <scuba@centroin.com.br> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mismatch results with disk performance Message-ID: <b7052e1e0506092349275a3418@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.4.33.0506091645590.24584-100000@hypselo.centroin.com.br> References: <b7052e1e05060912441e07bbbc@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.BSI.4.33.0506091645590.24584-100000@hypselo.centroin.com.br>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6/9/05, scuba@centroin.com.br <scuba@centroin.com.br> wrote: > Dmitry, >=20 > Both situations have the same result, an Slave IDE HDD on primary > controller, or a master HDD on the 2nd IDE controler, works much more > slow, testing with 'dd'. > I couldn't see that with diskinfo. I can't reproduce this. On a dual Xeon server with 2 PATA Seagate disks attached as masters to both IDE channels and a PATA CD-ROM as a slave on the 1st channel, reading them with dd procuces this: %dd if=3D/dev/ad0 of=3D/dev/null bs=3D1m count=3D20 20+0 records in 20+0 records out 20971520 bytes transferred in 0.378772 secs (55367171 bytes/secs) %dd if=3D/dev/ad2 of=3D/dev/null bs=3D1m count=3D20 20+0 records in 20+0 records out 20971520 bytes transferred in 0.364243 secs (57575625 bytes/secs) Please let me know if there is anything else I shall try to reproduce the problem. --=20 Dmitry "We live less by imagination than despite it" - Rockwell Kent, "N by E"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b7052e1e0506092349275a3418>