From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 2 17:02:18 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAA9616A422 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 17:02:18 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from xfb52@dial.pipex.com) Received: from asmtp-out4.blueyonder.co.uk (asmtp-out4.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.213.63]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F4B743D5E for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 17:02:15 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from xfb52@dial.pipex.com) Received: from [82.41.254.103] (helo=[192.168.0.2]) by asmtp-out4.blueyonder.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FErBu-0002Xv-Ht; Thu, 02 Mar 2006 17:02:14 +0000 Message-ID: <44072515.6080105@dial.pipex.com> Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 17:02:13 +0000 From: Alex Zbyslaw User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-GB; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20051106 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nikolas Britton References: <61560.207.70.139.52.1139628926.squirrel@www.compedgeracing.com> <65260.207.70.139.52.1139998857.squirrel@www.compedgeracing.com> <06b901c63220$3a849eb0$c801a8c0@nexpc> <50778.207.70.139.52.1140002253.squirrel@www.compedgeracing.com> <43F3EDD6.80707@mra.co.id> <44052663.7000802@mra.co.id> <440565FF.3030002@mra.co.id> <44058D9E.3010801@dial.pipex.com> <440675E0.1020204@mra.co.id> <4406CB4D.5050300@dial.pipex.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Liste FreeBSD Subject: Re: SATA Raid (stress test..) X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 17:02:18 -0000 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